Delete enrichment

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value the annotations cannot: a dataset bound to the enrichment keeps its columns, and legacy ids fail with a specific 422 error code. The phrase 'runs in flight finish' is opaque and the re-delete/idempotency behavior is not spelled out beyond the hint.

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?

Front-loaded, three short sentences with no filler. The only waste is the leading lowercase restatement of the tool name, which duplicates the title and the first clause.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is deleted, what collateral state is preserved (dataset columns), and the specific failure mode for legacy enrichments.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes one step further by explaining the id namespace constraint (legacy ids are rejected with 422), which is meaningfully more than the schema's 'enr_...' format note.

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 and resource ('Delete an enrichment by id'), which is unambiguous and separable from siblings like get_enrichment, update_enrichment, and delete_dataset. An agent can identify the operation without consulting the 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?

It gives a clear negative condition: legacy enrichments are refused with a 422 `legacy` and must be deleted in the app instead. That is real routing guidance. It does not, however, contrast with delete_dataset or discuss any prerequisite checks (e.g., confirm the id first with get_enrichment).

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