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

Annotations already signal destructive=true and idempotent=true; the description adds useful context by saying the deletion is permanent and that step data is also removed. This clarifies the blast radius beyond the structured fields, though it could mention irreversibility explicitly (permanently covers this) or post-delete behavior.

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 focused sentence with no filler; the most important facts (permanence, target states, cascading deletion of step data) are front-loaded in the opening clause.

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 one-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations that already declare destructiveness and idempotency, the description is complete. An agent knows what will be deleted, when it is allowed, and what input is required.

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 runId parameter is already fully documented as the UUID of the run to delete. The tool description adds no additional semantic detail about the parameter, so the baseline score 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 names a specific verb ('delete'), a precise resource ('flow run'), and the full scope of the operation ('all its step data'). It also distinguishes this tool from nearby siblings like cancel_flow_run by emphasizing permanence and by restricting the target to terminal run states.

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 eligible statuses (completed, failed, or cancelled) give an agent clear context for when deletion is appropriate, implicitly excluding active or pending runs. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as cancel_flow_run or state exclusions, so it falls just short of full guidance.

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