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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the annotations: it specifies that the deletion is permanent ('Cannot be undone') and that stored outputs are also deleted. This is useful context even though destructiveHint=true already signals destructive intent. It does not contradict any annotation.

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?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action and irreversibility. It contains no filler and 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?

Given the presence of a full output schema, detailed annotations, and complete parameter descriptions, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: the permanent deletion of the run and its outputs. No critical information is missing for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter (runId, environment, workspaceId) already has a thorough description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('extract run'), and adds the scope of deletion ('stored outputs (extract group)'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_* tools like delete_classify_run or delete_parse_run. It is unambiguous and specific.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as cancel_extract_run or other delete_* tools. The usage is implied by the resource name and the destructive nature, but no conditions or exclusions are given.

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