delete_experiment

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It effectively warns about irreversibility and specifies that spans are also deleted, covering the core destructive behaviors. It doesn't mention permissions or error conditions, but these are less critical for a delete operation.

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 two short, impactful sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, and the second emphasizes irreversibility. No redundant or filler content; every word 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 destructive tool with a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what gets deleted (experiment and spans) and that the action is irreversible. It is complete for an agent to understand the tool's primary behavior and consequences.

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?

The schema already fully describes the only parameter, experiment_id, including a reference to list_experiments. The description adds no extra semantics beyond that, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage is applied.

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 action ('Permanently delete') and the resource ('an experiment'), and explicitly includes 'its spans', providing precise scope. It differentiates from siblings like list_experiments, get_experiment, and create_experiment by focusing on the destructive nature.

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?

Provides clear context about when to use it: when you intend to permanently remove an experiment and its spans, with an explicit caution that it cannot be undone. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions (e.g., 'use list_experiments to view before deletion'), so it misses a 5.

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