lira_delete_results

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: only work-folder results are deleted, the model file is unchanged, results can be recreated with lira_run_analysis, and deletion is keyed by model name so same-named models in other folders are also affected.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Each subsequent sentence adds a distinct and useful behavioral caveat: model file unchanged, recreate path, and same-name cross-folder deletion.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not describe return values. Given the destructive annotation and single optional parameter, the description is complete: it explains what is deleted, where, what is not changed, how to recreate results, and the same-name side effect.

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 carry the parameter meaning. It does so by explaining that the optional model parameter can be a .lir path for a closed model, an open model, or omitted to target the active model. The exact string format for open models could be clearer, but the semantic coverage is good.

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 analysis results of a model. It also clarifies the target location (LIRA's work folder) and distinguishes the effect from the model file itself, which is altered by neither the deletion nor the related recreate action.

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?

It gives clear context for when the tool applies: delete results for a specified, closed, or active model, with the active model as the default. It also notes that lira_run_analysis recreates the results and that same-named models in other folders are affected, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name an alternative deletion method.

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