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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and removes stored outputs (the parse group). The instruction to follow any llmContext guidance in results is an additional behavioral detail. This goes beyond the annotation flags without contradicting them.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and affected resources, then the key consequence, then the operational follow-up instruction. 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 simple three-parameter destructive tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and annotation flags, the description is complete. It tells the agent what is deleted, that the action is irreversible, what exactly is destroyed, and that llmContext guidance in results should be followed. Nothing needed for correct invocation 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 the input schema fully documents runId, environment, and workspaceId, including the environment enum and granted-workspace requirements. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage; 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, resource, and affected object: 'Permanently delete a parse run and its stored outputs (parse group).' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling delete_*_run tools by naming the parse-specific run and its associated parse group, and the 'Cannot be undone' warning reinforces the operation's scope.

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 explicit guidance is given for when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The 'Cannot be undone' warning implies caution, but it does not state conditions, prerequisites, or compare this with other run lifecycle tools like cancellation or listing. The instruction to follow llmContext guidance concerns post-call behavior, not tool selection.

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