Delete tracked queries

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds substance beyond them: exactly what is destroyed (answers, matches, metrics history), that the operation is irreversible, and that a confirmationToken gate exists. This is precisely the context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 tight sentences with zero waste, ordered by importance: what is deleted, the safer alternative, then the mandatory confirmation step. Every clause 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 no output schema and no annotation detail beyond the hints, the description covers the critical path for a destructive tool: scope, irreversibility, alternative, and the confirmation gate. It stops short of explaining requestId or the scoping role of organizationId/projectId, which leaves a minor completeness gap for a 5-parameter tool.

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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does well for two of five: it documents how to obtain confirmationToken (via preview_operation with tool "delete_tracked_queries") and implies the trackedQueryIds batch limit ("up to 100"). organizationId, projectId, and requestId remain unaddressed, leaving real gaps at this coverage level.

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 ... tracked queries") plus the blast radius ("together with their captured answers, matches and metrics history") and the batch cap of 100. This clearly distinguishes it from update_tracked_queries and the other delete_* siblings.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that should route an agent away from deletion: pause via update_tracked_queries if the goal is only to stop spending budget without losing history. It also spells out the mandatory confirmation workflow and the exact precondition (user must explicitly agree) before invocation.

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