investigation_delete_experiment

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

The term 'hard-delete' implies permanent destruction, and the confirmation flags are specified. However, with no annotations, the description does not disclose side effects, error conditions, or return behavior, leaving some gaps.

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?

Two tightly written sentences, front-loading the action and adding crucial prerequisites. No filler or redundancy.

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 simple delete tool with an output schema (not shown), the description covers the main purpose and confirmation requirements. Minor omission: behavior if confirm is false, but overall sufficient.

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?

Despite 0% schema coverage, the description adds critical context: experiment_id is the identifier, confirm must be true (overriding default), and confirm_production is required in production. This compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 tool hard-deletes an investigation experiment by experiment_id. It distinguishes from siblings as the only delete experiment tool, with no ambiguity.

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 explicitly requires confirm=True and, in production, confirm_production=True, guiding when and how to use. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear enough.

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