delete_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose what is destroyed (the analysis and its frozen diff) and what is deliberately spared (the repository). It covers the edge case of removing an analysis flagged as unreadable. It stops short of stating irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or any permission/auth constraints.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler, and the core action plus its blast radius are front-loaded before the edge-case sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the key information: destructive scope and the untouched boundary. It lacks only irreversibility/permission context, which is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 100% and the single analysis_id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from create_analysis or list_analyses. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('analysis'), plus the coupled artifact ('its frozen diff'), which cleanly separates it from siblings like delete_findings or delete_explanations. The scope note that the repository is not touched further pins down what is and isn't affected.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb rather than stated: there is no explicit 'use this when you want to permanently remove an analysis' or routing to alternatives such as update_analysis or refresh_analysis. The repository-untouched note gives partial scope guidance but is not a when-to-use rule.

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