delete_build

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a delete (destructive) and that it is currently blocked, which is the most critical behavioral fact. It does not explain what happens on invocation (e.g., error vs no-op), but for a disabled tool, the blocking is the essential transparency.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loads the action ('Delete a build') followed by the critical blocking status. Every sentence earns its place; there is zero fluff, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool is intentionally disabled, the description is practically complete: it tells the agent what the tool would do and why it cannot be used right now. The output schema exists but is irrelevant to a blocked tool, and no additional context (e.g., permissions, side effects) is necessary for correct non-use. It lacks details on error behavior, but that is minor given the blocked status.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented build_id parameter. However, the description makes no mention of the parameter at all. While the parameter name is self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value, leaving the agent to infer that build_id identifies the target build without any explicit confirmation or edge-case guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a build') and clearly differentiates from siblings like create_build and sign_build. The 'CURRENTLY BLOCKED' note adds crucial context that the operation is intentionally disabled, so an agent immediately knows the tool's purpose and current status.

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 explicitly tells the agent the tool is blocked and disabled for safety, which is a clear 'when NOT to use' directive. It does not mention alternatives, but for a disabled tool, the only actionable guidance is to avoid calling it, which is provided clearly.

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