QuantConnect

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

Annotations include 'idempotentHint: true', indicating safe retry behavior, which the description does not repeat. The description adds minimal context by specifying the resource ('backtest from a project'), but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as permissions needed, irreversible effects, or response format. With annotations covering idempotency, the description adds some value but lacks depth.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a deletion operation with 1 parameter and nested object structure) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like safety warnings or prerequisites, and with 0% schema coverage, it does not fully address parameter documentation needs, leaving gaps in completeness.

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%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description implies parameters ('a backtest from a project') but does not detail them beyond what the tool name suggests. It adds marginal semantic value by hinting at 'project' and 'backtest' contexts, but does not fully compensate for the schema gap, resulting in a baseline score.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a backtest from a project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file', 'delete_object', or 'delete_optimization', which also perform deletion operations on different resources, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project and backtest ID), exclusions, or comparisons to related tools like 'delete_file' or 'delete_object', leaving usage context unclear.

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