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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the action cannot be undone, it is free, and it is restricted to runs whose parent research the authenticated user owns. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by cost, ownership, and irreversibility constraints. Every sentence adds information the agent needs.

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 single-parameter delete operation with annotations already covering destructiveness and idempotency, the description is largely complete. It covers ownership, irreversibility, and cost. It could mention the response or behavior when the id does not exist or is not owned, but this is not critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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% and the only parameter, id, is already described as 'The brand-name run ID to delete.' The description adds no deeper semantics beyond restating that deletion is by id, so the schema carries the burden.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a brand-name run by id.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like delete_research and delete_deep_dive, and clarifies that it targets a run rather than the brand names themselves.

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 description provides clear usage context: the action is free, irreversible, and only permitted when the authenticated user owns the parent research. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, but the ownership constraint and resource specificity give sufficient guidance for selecting it.

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