delete_dataset

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: irreversibility, cascading deletion of test cases, the fact that Experiments keep results but lose their link, a named refusal behavior with instruction to relay the message, and the downstream 409 consequences for change-sides and rerun-failed. This is exactly the side-effect detail an agent cannot get from the schema.

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 consequence of deletion is front-loaded and every behavioral sentence earns its place. The trailing Sphinx-style ':param:' and ':returns:' fragments are documentation artifacts that mostly duplicate the schema and slightly dilute the otherwise tight prose.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers outcomes, failure modes, and cross-entity effects, and it states what is returned. What is missing is how to obtain a valid dataset_id and whether any permission/authorization conditions apply.

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% and the only parameter line is ':param dataset_id: The Dataset's id.', which merely restates the schema title. It adds no format, sourcing (e.g. from list_datasets/get_dataset), or validity guidance beyond the property name.

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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the cascade scope: 'Deletes a Dataset and all its test cases.' That scope line alone separates it from siblings like delete_experiment or delete_deployment, and from non-destructive dataset tools such as remove_test_cases or update_dataset.

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?

Gives a real precondition ('get a yes first') and describes when the call will fail (while something else still uses the Dataset). It does not route to an alternative for partial removal, e.g. remove_test_cases when only some cases should go, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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