delete_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., cascading deletions). The optional 'soft' parameter hints at preview capability, but this isn't explained in the description itself.

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, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what 'delete' entails (permanent vs. soft delete), what happens to associated data, error conditions, or return values. The agent lacks critical context needed to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 100%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about 'run_id' or 'soft' parameters beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when schema coverage is high, but doesn't compensate with extra context.

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 'Delete a test run' clearly states the verb ('Delete') and resource ('a test run'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_case', 'delete_plan', or 'delete_run_from_plan_entry', which all follow similar patterns but target different resources.

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. With many sibling deletion tools (e.g., delete_case, delete_plan, delete_run_from_plan_entry), there's no indication of which resource type this applies to or any prerequisites for deletion. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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