abx_delete_action_runs

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds only a restatement of the name plus the raw DELETE endpoint, which is already reflected in the title; it discloses nothing new such as irreversibility, per-ID error handling, or whether partial failures roll back.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the first two sentences say the same thing twice ('Delete multiple action runs' / 'Deletes multiple action runs with their specific ID'), and the trailing REST path duplicates the annotation title. Half the text is redundant.

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 destructive, open-world bulk-delete with no output schema, the description should at minimum signal irreversibility and distinguish itself from the single-ID sibling. Neither is present, leaving gaps that annotations alone do not fill for an agent choosing between delete variants.

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 100% — the single 'body' property is documented as 'IDs of the action runs'. The description's 'with their specific ID' is slightly misleading in the singular, given the body is an array of strings, but adds no real meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Delete multiple action runs') and clarifies that IDs are supplied, which distinguishes it from a bulk-everything delete. However, it never acknowledges the closest sibling abx_delete_action_runs_by_id, so an agent cannot tell from the text whether this is the plural form of that tool or something different.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus abx_delete_action_runs_by_id, abx_cancel_action_run, or abx_delete_action. No prerequisites, no warnings that the deleted runs are permanently removed, and no indication of what happens to runs that are still executing.

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