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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it specifies that stored outputs (the split group) are also deleted and that the operation is irreversible. This gives the agent the key consequence of invoking the tool.

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?

One tightly packed sentence covers the operation, deletion scope, and irreversibility with zero filler. The most important qualifier ('Permanently delete') is front-loaded.

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?

A delete tool with a simple parameter set, full schema descriptions, and destructive/idempotent annotations is adequately covered. The description explains what is destroyed and that it cannot be undone, so no essential calling context 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 parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The tool description adds nothing parameter-specific, which is acceptable but not additive.

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'), the resource ('split run'), and the scope of deletion ('and its stored outputs (split group)'). This clearly distinguishes it from other delete_*_run siblings and from cancel_split_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 phrase 'Permanently delete' and 'Cannot be undone' imply this is the final-destruction option rather than a cancellation tool. However, it never explicitly names cancel_split_run as the alternative for non-permanent cancellation, leaving the routing partially implied.

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