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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: the schedule is stopped, run history survives but becomes unreachable, and the call may return needs_confirmation, signalling a two-step approval flow. It stops short of stating irreversibility explicitly.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and immediate side effect, then the data-retention caveat, then the response nuance. 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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the schedule stop, the retention behavior, and the confirmation response. It could still note irreversibility or what happens to runs and references after deletion, but nothing essential for invoking it 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 evalId, workspace, and approvalId are already documented in the schema. The description only hints at the approvalId flow via 'needs_confirmation' and adds no formatting or sourcing detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Deletes) and resource (an eval), plus the side effect on its schedule, which cleanly separates it from the sibling delete tools for datasets, rubrics, and flows. An agent can identify the target entity without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and the destructive annotation, but the description never says when to delete versus archive or update, nor does it name any alternative tool. The only routing signal is the implicit confirmation flow referenced by 'needs_confirmation'.

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