delete_backtest

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

Annotations provide idempotentHint=true, indicating safe retry behavior. The description adds that this is a deletion operation, which implies destructive action, but doesn't elaborate on permissions, side effects, or confirmation requirements. It doesn't contradict annotations, but adds minimal behavioral context beyond the obvious.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place.

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, annotations cover idempotency, the schema documents parameters well, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description could better address behavioral aspects like permissions or side effects, but for a simple delete operation with good structured data, it's reasonably complete.

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%, but the input schema includes detailed descriptions for 'projectId' and 'backtestId' within the nested object. The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. With schema doing the documentation work, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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') and resource ('a backtest from a project'), making the purpose unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_file' or 'delete_optimization', but the specificity of 'backtest' and 'project' context provides inherent distinction.

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 the backtest to exist), nor does it reference sibling tools like 'list_backtests' for discovery or 'update_backtest' as an alternative. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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