Api chat questionnaire runs destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only 'Experimental' and says nothing about what is destroyed (the run and presumably its questions), whether it is recoverable, or what authorization is required — an odd gap for an irreversible delete.

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 text is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but its brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency; there is nothing to front-load because there is no operation described.

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 destructive, non-reversible deletion endpoint with one undocumented parameter and no output schema, the description should state that it permanently removes a questionnaire prefill run. It does not, leaving the agent to infer the core behavior from the tool name alone.

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 single parameter 'id' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it. It says nothing — not whether 'id' is the run's UUID, what object it identifies, or how to obtain it (e.g., from runs_list).

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 'Experimental: questionnaire prefill runs' names the resource but omits the operation entirely; only the tool name's 'destroy' suffix reveals that it deletes a run. It reads as a restatement of the resource rather than a statement of a specific verb+resource 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any of the many sibling tools (runs_retrieve, runs_list, runs_partial_update). The word 'Experimental' hints at caution but gives no actionable condition for selecting this tool.

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