delete_build

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the deletion is permanent and also removes the linked artifact, clarifying exactly what gets destroyed, though it says nothing about failure modes if the build does not exist.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the scope of destruction and followed by the critical id disambiguation. No filler; 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?

For a single-parameter delete tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description covers permanence, side effects (linked artifact removal), and id provenance. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 and an integer-only field, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it identifies buildId as the durable build JOB id sourced from list_builds/create_build and explicitly warns it is not the app id, preventing a common misinvocation.

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 specific verb (delete) and resource (a build job and its linked artifact) with scope (from the designated project). An agent can distinguish this from delete_scene, delete_branch, delete_assets, and other delete siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the delete semantics but the description names no alternatives and gives no when/when-not guidance relative to siblings such as get_build, create_build, or download_build. Minimum viable but no explicit routing.

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