clear_samples_for_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action is destructive ('remove all sample associations and cleanup') but lacks details on side effects, reversibility, permissions, or impact on other entities. Minimal transparency is provided.

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 extremely concise with two sentences plus an argument list. It is front-loaded with the purpose and scenario, containing no superfluous information. Every word adds value.

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 tool with one parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details on what 'cleanup' entails, return behavior, or prerequisites (e.g., run state), leaving some gaps for a destructive action.

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 0%. The description's argument section says 'run_id: The run identifier', which adds little beyond the schema's title 'Run Id'. No additional semantics such as format, constraints, or context are given.

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 name 'clear_samples_for_run' combined with the description 'Remove all sample associations and cleanup for a run (re-demux scenario)' clearly identifies the verb (remove/cleanup), resource (sample associations for a run), and specific scenario (re-demux). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'remove_sample_from_run' which removes a single sample.

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 implies use in a 're-demux scenario' but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives, nor does it provide prerequisites or conditions. No guidance on when not to use the tool.

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