Delete dataset

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds meaningful behavior not in structured data: rows and cells are removed, enrichments survive, and a specific 409 `dataset_in_use` condition fires while a run is active. That cascade and error semantics materially reduce the risk of a mistaken destructive call.

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 body is two tight, front-loaded sentences with the cascade semantics and the error condition in priority order. The leading 'delete dataset' line merely restates the name/title and could be dropped, a minor redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and a trivial one-param input, the description covers what an agent needs: what gets destroyed, what survives, and the blocking condition. It does not state the success response shape or whether the deletion is immediate vs. queued, but that is a small gap for a destructive delete.

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 single `id` parameter is fully documented in the schema (including the `ds_...` format), so the description's 'by id' phrasing adds nothing beyond it. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is 100% and the description supplies no extra format or lookup guidance.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a dataset by id') and clarifies the cascade scope (rows and cells go with it; enrichment stays). It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling delete_dataset_rows, so the agent must infer the distinction, but the scope of this tool is unambiguous.

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?

States a concrete precondition: a 409 `dataset_in_use` error occurs while a run is on the dataset, which tells the agent it must ensure no run is active first. It stops short of naming an alternative tool for deleting individual rows or handling the 409 course of action.

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