Delete a run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states permanence ('for good'), cascading deletion ('with every answer on it'), and the refusal behavior for signed-off runs. The confirm parameter's schema reinforces this with 'no undo and nothing is copied anywhere first.'

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, the most important constraint (signed-off runs are refused) is stated immediately, and the alternative behavior is given last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive two-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it covers purpose, permanence, cascade effects, and the key refusal case. A small gap is that it does not describe the success response or clarify what 'abandon' concretely does, but the schema and description together are sufficient for correct invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some behavioral context for the run parameter by noting signed-off runs are refused, but it does not add new syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides for run and confirm.

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 a run for good, with every answer on it.' It also distinguishes this from related run tools by emphasizing permanent deletion and the refusal of signed-off runs, so an agent can tell it apart from run_show, run_status, and run_sign_off.

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 gives clear context for when deletion is appropriate and explicitly warns against deleting signed-off runs, directing the user to 'Abandon a run you no longer want instead.' It loses a point because the suggested alternative 'abandon' is not a named sibling tool in the provided list, making the guidance slightly less actionable.

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