Delete all logs of a pipeline

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, so the description adds value by clarifying exactly what is and is not destroyed: logs go away, but pipeline and step results remain, preserving failure indication. The 'Two-step' note also discloses an additional confirmation behavior not visible in the annotations.

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 short sentences, no fluff, and the core behavior is front-loaded. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what is deleted, what remains, and that a two-step confirmation is involved.

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 tool, the description covers the effect on logs, the preservation of pipeline results, and the two-step nature. Combined with full schema descriptions and an output schema, this is nearly complete; a slightly more explicit mention of the confirm_token requirement would make it fully self-contained.

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 repo_id, number, and confirm_token thoroughly. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 uses a specific verb—'Deletes'—and names the exact resource: 'the stored output of every step of a pipeline.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling delete_step_logs by covering all steps, not a single step.

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 clearly implies this tool is for clearing all step log output while preserving pipeline structure and step results. It mentions 'Two-step,' which signals a confirmation workflow, though it does not explicitly contrast with delete_step_logs or state when to prefer one over the other.

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