delete_dataset

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly states that the operation is a 'soft-delete' and that 'all related state' is preserved, which implies reversibility and non-destructiveness. However, it does not elaborate on what 'preserve' means in practice (e.g., whether the dataset becomes invisible, whether annotations are retained), nor does it mention outcomes like the dataset's new status. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core action and a key constraint. It is front-loaded and contains no filler. However, it could be improved by adding a brief second sentence about usage context or the restore counterpart, which would increase utility without sacrificing conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no enums, output schema exists). The description covers the essential points: that the delete is soft and state is preserved. It does not mention the restore_dataset sibling or what happens on repeated deletion, but given the existence of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, the description is nearly complete. A small addition about using restore_dataset for reversal would make it fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter dataset_id is described in the schema as 'Dataset identifier to soft-delete.'). The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the purpose. According to the guidelines, when coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description does not provide extra semantic value.

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 ('soft-delete') and resource ('dataset'), and adds that it preserves related state. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delete_bbox_annotation or delete_category, which operate on different resources. The verb+resource+scope is specific and 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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., restore_dataset, or other delete operations). It does not mention prerequisites, such as whether the dataset must exist or be active, nor does it indicate that the operation is reversible via restore_dataset. This lack of context leaves the agent without decision-making criteria.

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