Destroy Experiment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('destroy everything'), idempotency (safe on already-destroyed), and return behavior (final report). This adequately informs an agent of side effects and safety, though it does not mention reversibility or permissions, which are implied.

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 front-loaded with the primary action, then a clear usage directive, idempotency note, and return info. Each sentence adds value with no fluff, and the capitalized section labels make it easily scannable for an agent.

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 an output schema present, return format details are covered. The description provides purpose, usage trigger, idempotency, and return contents, which is fully sufficient for an agent to decide when and how to call the tool correctly. Nothing essential 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?

The schema already describes the single parameter (experiment_id) at 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides—only idempotency context that is behavioral, not parameter-related. Thus, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action (destroy), the resource (a sandbox/experiment), and the effect ('everything in it'). It distinguishes from siblings like cancel_job and get_experiment by emphasizing final cleanup and returning a report, making its unique purpose 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?

The description explicitly instructs 'USE THIS as soon as an experiment has told you what you needed' and emphasizes 'Always call it' to free CPU/memory, giving a clear trigger condition. It does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is clear execution is for final cleanup.

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