github_actions_delete_workflow_run

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

The description gives no behavioral details beyond the destructive implication of 'delete'. With no annotations to fall back on, it fails to disclose critical traits like irreversibility, required permissions, or side effects (e.g., removal of associated artifacts). This leaves the agent underinformed about the operation's impact.

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, concise sentence that is immediately understandable. It avoids unnecessary verbosity, though it could include a bit more context without significant bloat. Overall, it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is barely adequate. It omits important context such as the permanence of deletion, prerequisite permissions, or the relationship to other workflow run operations. A more complete description would address these gaps.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for the three parameters (owner, repo, run_id), which are self-explanatory. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline expectation. No compensation is needed, so a score of 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 'Delete a workflow run' clearly states the action (delete) and the resource (workflow run). It effectively communicates the tool's core function and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform other operations like approve, cancel, or re-run. However, it does not elaborate on the specific type of workflow run or any nuances.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cancel_workflow_run or force_cancel_workflow_run. The description lacks context about the circumstances favoring deletion over other actions, leaving the agent with insufficient decision-making information.

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