delete_lab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that nodes are stopped and wiped, the lab is unbound, and the .unl file is kept unless delete_file=true (irreversible). It also mentions it can work on running labs and is not blocked by others, providing useful 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 sentences long, free of fluff, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, default behavior, parameter condition, and usage constraints.

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 the tool's simplicity (2 params, 1 required, no annotations, output schema exists), the description adequately covers the behavior, parameter effects, and usage context. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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 compensate. It explains the lab_path parameter (works in root or subfolder) and the delete_file parameter default behavior and irreversibility. While it does not detail lab_path format, it provides sufficient meaning for both parameters.

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 clearly states the tool tears down a lab's running session, stops, wipes nodes, and unbinds, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like delete_folder or delete_node by specifying it targets labs and their sessions.

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 explains that the .unl file is kept by default and that passing delete_file=true permanently deletes it, guiding parameter usage. It also notes the tool works in root or subfolders and is not blocked by other labs. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like stop_lab.

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