delete_computation

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 discloses that deletion stops running computations, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects on attached data assets, or what the output contains. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete a computation') and adds a clarifying detail ('stop it if currently running'). There is no wasted verbiage, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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, no annotations, and an output schema (which should cover return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action and a key behavioral trait (stopping), but misses important context like permanence, permissions, or effects on related resources. The output schema helps, but the description should do more for a mutation tool.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about the 'computation_id' parameter beyond what's inferred from the tool name. It doesn't explain the parameter's format, source, or constraints. With one parameter, the baseline is 4, but the description fails to compensate for the lack of schema details, resulting in a minimal 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 a computation') and the resource ('computation'), and specifies an additional effect ('stop it if currently running'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_computation' or 'get_computation' by focusing on deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'detach_computation_data_assets', which might involve removal but not full deletion.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid computation_id), exclusions (e.g., not for data assets), or compare to siblings like 'detach_computation_data_assets' or 'list_computations' for selection. Usage is implied only by the action described.

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