Generations Delete

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

Annotations already signal destructive intent (destructiveHint=true), and the description adds meaningful behavioral details beyond that: the terminal-state requirement and the 409 error for in-progress generations. This gives the agent a clear picture of constraints and error handling, enhancing transparency without contradicting annotations.

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 sentences, with the primary action front-loaded in the first sentence and a critical constraint in the second. Every word earns its place, making it concise and easy to parse.

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 simple delete tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the constraint on deletable states, and the specific error code for violations. It doesn't describe the success return, but that is less critical for a delete operation given the annotations and parameter schema.

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 provides 100% coverage with a 'Generation ID' description for the id parameter. The description's 'by id' reinforces but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema. Since the parameter is simple and well-documented in the schema, the description adds minimal additional 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a generation by id'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like generate_get-generation or generations_estimate-cost by focusing on deletion.

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 explicit context on when deletion is valid, noting only terminal generations (COMPLETED/FAILED/REJECTED) can be deleted and that processing generations return 409. While it doesn't explicitly name an alternative tool for checking status, it implies the need to verify status first, which is sufficient for a delete operation.

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