Call Destructive Tool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it enumerates what counts as destructive (deletes, overwrites, interrupts) and discloses the human-in-the-loop confirmation step. It does not describe post-confirmation side effects or irreversibility in more detail, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Two compact sentences with the operation class front-loaded and the approval behavior second. Nothing is redundant with the title or wasted.

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 three-parameter tool with full schema coverage and rich annotations, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. The confirmation-token flow is only implicit here ('Asks the user to confirm') and fully spelled out only in the schema, so one small piece is delegated rather than described.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already explains all three parameters, including the confirm_token conditionality and the list-runs-per-item behavior. The description itself adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema's own text, which is acceptable given the coverage.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb+resource ('Run a destructive operation') and immediately defines the category with concrete examples ('deletes, overwrites or interrupts something'). Combined with the title naming 'destructive', an agent can distinguish it from call_read_tool and call_write_tool without opening any schema.

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?

'Run a destructive operation' implies when to pick this over the read/write siblings, and 'Asks the user to confirm' implies the approval step. But there is no explicit routing guidance (e.g., 'use call_write_tool for non-destructive mutations') and no stated preconditions such as needing a name from search_tools.

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