Delete run

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful context: deletion is permanent, it includes isolated canvas artifacts, and it requires canvas:write or full permission. This goes well beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: first states the action and outcome, second states irreversibility and permissions, third provides alternatives and parameter targeting. Front-loaded and tightly written with no filler.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what is deleted, what cannot be undone, permission requirements, alternatives, and how to identify the target. No important behavioral gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that playbook_id should be passed as 'the UUID or GUID of the playbook this call should target,' reinforcing the relationship between playbook_id and the run being deleted.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource pairing: 'Permanently delete a workflow run and its isolated canvas artifacts.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like update_run and delete_playbook by naming the exact scope of the deletion.

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 guides when NOT to use this tool: 'Use update_run with status=archived to keep artifacts, and delete_playbook only when the whole playbook should go.' It also states the required permission, providing complete usage context.

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