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

While annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, the description goes well beyond them by disclosing the downstream blast radius: bound evals stop being runnable (datasetOk: false) and reviews/specs lose their source. It also surfaces the two-step `needs_confirmation` / approvalId flow, which is critical operational context for a two-phase destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the core action ('Deletes a dataset') and then spends the remaining words on consequences, the cross-tool check, and the confirmation flow. No filler sentences; every clause carries actionable content.

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, no-output-schema tool with full schema coverage, this is exactly the right content: consequences, a related-tool verification step, and the confirmation handshake. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely and 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 coverage is 100%, so all three params are already documented and the baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by explaining that the call 'May return `needs_confirmation`,' which clarifies the purpose of the approvalId parameter and how the two-call confirmation sequence works.

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 (a dataset), making it trivially distinguishable from siblings like caliper_datasets_update, caliper_datasets_remove_item, and caliper_datasets_get. The cascade consequences further pin the scope to whole-dataset deletion.

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?

Provides an explicit pre-flight step: 'check caliper_evals_list for evals that reference it and say so before proposing.' This names a concrete alternative tool and the condition that invokes it. It does not, however, state when not to delete or the exact criteria for bailing out, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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