Delete Target

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

The description adds that deletion is permanent, cascades to associated test runs and data points, and cannot be undone. This exceeds the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the scope and irreversibility, providing valuable behavioral context.

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?

The description is three focused sentences plus a minimal Args block. It front-loads the main action, then adds cascade and irreversibility details, with no redundant text.

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 simple one-parameter delete with an output schema and destructive annotation, the description covers the essential information: what is deleted, cascading behavior, and permanence. It does not mention error behavior for non-existent targets, but the annotation and low complexity make the description adequately complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section ('name: Name of the target to delete') provides the only explanation of the parameter, clarifying it is the target's name. However, it lacks additional constraints like uniqueness or how to obtain the name, but for a single-parameter delete tool it is sufficient.

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 states 'Remove a simulation target and all its related test data' with a clear verb and resource, and further clarifies permanent deletion and cascading to test runs/data points. This distinguishes it from other delete_ siblings by specifying the resource type (simulation target) and side effects.

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 provides clear context for what the tool does (cascading deletion of a target) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like delete_scenario or preview_delete_scenario. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are given, so usage is implied rather than explicit.

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