dataset_delete_dataset

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention license and environment constraints, but for a destructive delete operation it fails to disclose permanence, side effects on the underlying BigQuery table, or any post-deletion consequences. This is a significant gap.

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 reasonably compact but contains redundancy: 'Delete an XQL user dataset' appears twice in the first two lines. The license and environment lines add necessary context, but the repeated opening reduces conciseness.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema, the description includes critical license and environment constraints. However, it does not explain side effects, error behavior, or how this tool differs from the similar 'xql_delete_dataset' sibling, leaving it minimally adequate rather than complete.

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?

The description itself provides no parameter guidance, but the nested schema includes descriptions for 'dataset_name' and 'delete_underlying_bq_table'. Although the context signal reports 0% schema coverage at the top level, the visible schema offers adequate parameter semantics, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the action ('Delete') and the resource ('XQL user dataset'), and adds a scope qualifier ('created by the Cortex SDK'). However, a sibling tool 'xql_delete_dataset' appears to target the same or similar operation, and the description does not explicitly differentiate between them.

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 execution context: required license tiers and the restriction that the API is only applicable from within the XSIAM Notebook environment. It stops short of naming alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use scenarios, so it misses the top score.

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