run_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that the run AND its retained output are destroyed, and that explicit confirmation gates the action. It stops short of stating irreversibility, required permissions, or any rate/locking considerations for a destructive operation.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs purpose, scope, destruction target, and the confirmation gate with no padding. Minor jargon ('absolute ... run') slightly reduces immediate clarity but costs nothing structurally.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers the destructive scope and confirmation requirement. The remaining gap is the missing routing guidance against action_cancel for non-completed runs, which leaves a small decision hole.

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%, so the schema already documents target, run, confirm, and runtime — including the confirmation requirement and the runtime-omission default. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond this, 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 one completed absolute service or action run and its retained output'), and the 'completed' qualifier scopes it meaningfully. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (action_cancel), so differentiation is only implied by the 'completed' constraint rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied: only 'completed' runs are eligible and confirmation is required, which suggests running jobs belong to action_cancel. However, no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not condition is given, so the agent must infer routing.

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