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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates exactly what is destroyed (scope, config snapshot, counts, funnel), asserts irreversibility ("none of which survive anywhere else"), and discloses an authorization restriction and a side effect on duplicate groups.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the destructive scope comes first, then exclusions, then the permission constraint. The all-caps emphasis on the ownership rule is slightly heavy-handed, but every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no filler.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema destructive tool, the description covers purpose, irreversibility, preconditions, refusals, and side effects. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it 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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so baseline 3 applies. The description restates the ownership constraint on run_id rather than adding new syntax or format detail, and says nothing about connection_id beyond what the schema already provides.

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 and resource ("Discard a run") and immediately scopes what that entails: scope, configuration snapshot, counts and funnel. It also names the sibling it is distinct from (reverse_audit_event) and the behavior it does not perform, so an agent can separate it from other delete/undo tools.

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?

Explicit when-not guidance: it does not undo a dispatched run's CRM writes (use reverse_audit_event), duplicate groups are detached rather than deleted, and only runs you created may be deleted — runs made in the interface are refused. This is precisely the routing and precondition information an agent needs before calling.

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