delete_study

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses destructive, permanent behavior, lists affected data (sessions, recordings, transcripts, analytics, interview guides), and states it cannot be undone. This goes well beyond the minimum and eliminates ambiguity about consequences.

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 starts with a prominent DESTRUCTIVE warning, then provides essential details in a clear hierarchy: what it deletes, irreversibility, confirmation protocol, and parameter explanation. Every sentence carries important information, with no filler.

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 one parameter and no annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: the action, the permanent consequences, the exact data affected, the required confirmation workflow, and the parameter meaning. An output schema exists, so return values don't need explanation. No gaps remain.

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 input schema only provides the parameter name 'study_id' with type string and no description. The description's Args section adds semantic meaning by identifying it as 'the unique identifier of the study to delete', clarifying its purpose. This is helpful, though minimal for a single simple parameter.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with the resource 'study' and clearly states it permanently deletes the study and ALL associated data. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_synthesis_chat and delete_section by focusing on the study resource and its full data scope.

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 explicit when-to-use instructions: do NOT call in the same turn as the deletion request, instead first respond with a confirmation message, and only call after user confirms in a follow-up. This is clear, actionable guidance that also prevents misuse.

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