u1_delete_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the confirmation guard, which is meaningful for a destructive operation, but it does not explicitly state irreversibility or what happens to associated artifacts.

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 entire description is one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It conveys the action and the critical safety requirement efficiently.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description is nearly complete: it identifies what is deleted and the confirmation requirement. It lacks explicit irreversibility or return-value info, but neither is essential for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies that confirm must be true for deletion to proceed, but run_id is left to be inferred from the phrase 'run directory'. This is partially helpful but not a full parameter explanation.

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 ('Delete'), a precise resource ('one generated run directory'), and a unique action. It clearly distinguishes itself from the many read/analysis siblings such as u1_get_run and u1_list_runs.

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 gives a clear precondition: confirm=true is required. It does not name alternatives, but no other sibling performs deletion, so the usage context is sufficiently clear.

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