Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the essential behavioral facts for a destructive operation: the deletion is permanent, it cascades to stored outputs (extract group), and it cannot be undone. The llmContext instruction adds procedural context. Minor gaps, such as permissions and whether a running run can be deleted, remain.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences with no wasted words. The primary purpose and destructive scope are front-loaded, the irreversibility warning immediately follows, and the llmContext note is a single compact closing sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description discloses the critical facts (permanence, cascading deletion). However, it omits state prerequisites (e.g., whether a run must be canceled before deletion), what the response contains, and how this relates to the extract group lifecycle. Adequate but with clear gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is effectively 100%: workspaceId, environment, and runId all have descriptions, including the runId provenance ('The run ID from extract_data') and the environment-API-key pinning constraint. Per the baseline rule, the description need not re-explain parameters, and it doesn't.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (extract run), and expands scope by naming what else is affected ('stored outputs (extract group)'). The resource naming 'extract run' distinguishes it from the sibling delete_classify_run, delete_split_run, and delete_workflow_run tools without requiring schema inspection.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. Critically, the sibling cancel_extract_run exists and stops a run without deleting it; the description never clarifies when an agent should cancel versus permanently delete. 'Cannot be undone' is a caution, not usage direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.