delete_analysis

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses what is removed (task record, report, logs, idempotency mapping), confirms irreversibility, and explains the confirmation parameter's purpose. This exceeds what annotations alone provide.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, followed by essential context and a clear Args section. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy—making it appropriately sized for a destructive tool.

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 destructive nature and single parameter, the description covers all critical aspects: when deletion is allowed, what gets deleted, irreversibility, and the confirmation mechanism. The output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. The ADR reference adds useful organizational context.

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 schema has one parameter with zero description coverage. The description's Args section provides critical semantics: confirm_run_id must exactly match the run_id to prevent accidental deletion. This meaningfully compensates for the schema gap, though it could have elaborated on how to obtain the run_id.

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 immediately states "Permanently delete an analysis task and all its data" with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_analysis by specifying only terminal tasks can be deleted, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains when to use the tool (explicit deletion is required, no auto-cleanup per ADR-0009) and constrains usage to terminal tasks. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives like cancel_analysis for active tasks, but the context strongly implies that distinction.

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