delete eval

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds extensive behavioral context: irreversibility, cascading deletion of samples/outputs/verdicts, preservation of models/judges/criteria, OWNER/ADMIN requirement, 400/403/404 error conditions, return payload, post-deletion GET behavior, and 'No spend'. No contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries operational value: action, endpoint, auth scope, response, preconditions, alternative action, errors, and side effects. Although long, it is front-loaded with the core purpose and then systematically adds necessary caveats for a destructive operation.

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 with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers prerequisites, authentication, error codes, cascading effects, unaffected resources, return value, and post-deletion observable behavior. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter 'id' is already documented as 'The eval run id'. The description reinforces that the id identifies the eval run and explains 404 behavior for a missing id, but adds no meaningfully new parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a precise verb ('Permanently delete'), a specific resource ('finished eval run'), and the exact state scope (DONE|ERROR|CANCELLED). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling delete tools like delete_criterion or delete_dedicated_endpoint by naming the eval-run resource and its completion states.

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 says when to use it ('cleaning up runs a customer no longer needs as evidence'), when not to use it (PENDING|RUNNING refused), and what to do instead (call POST /v1/evals/{id}/cancel first). This gives the agent complete routing guidance.

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