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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description adds value by specifying exactly what is destroyed (the parse run and its stored outputs) and emphasizing irreversibility with 'Cannot be undone.' This goes beyond the structured annotation without contradicting it.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: 'permanently delete' conveys irreversibility, 'parse run' identifies the target, and 'stored outputs (parse group)' explains the scope of deletion.

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 fully documented schema, the destructive and idempotent annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description covers all essential behavioral and operational aspects. No critical information needed to call the tool correctly is missing.

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%, so all three parameters (runId, environment, workspaceId) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, matching the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas.

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 ('parse run'), and clarifies that it also removes the stored outputs (parse group). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling delete_* tools such as delete_classify_run or delete_extract_run.

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?

The description gives clear context: use this tool to permanently delete a parse run and its outputs. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, but the resource type is unambiguous enough to guide selection among the many sibling delete tools.

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