delete_run

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears the full burden. It does disclose the destructive scope (run and all artifacts) and a prerequisite condition ('finished'), but it does not state whether deletion is irreversible or whether special permissions are required.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and scope directly, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 destructive operation, the description captures the key side effect (artifact deletion) and applicability constraint ('finished'). An output schema exists so return-value details are not the description's job, but irreversibility and error/status behavior are left unspecified, and no annotations fill that gap.

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%, and the description adds little for run_id. It does not explain where the ID comes from, its format, ownership constraints, or how it relates to the broader run lifecycle, leaving the agent to infer the parameter meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and names the resource ('a finished run') plus the cascade ('all of its artifacts'). It clearly distinguishes this from read/list siblings like get_run, list_runs, and get_artifact.

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 implies a usage condition: only finished runs are eligible for deletion. However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when to choose this over get_run or run_ticket, leaving tool-selection guidance mostly implicit.

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