Delete evaluation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it explains exactly what is destroyed vs preserved (results remain attached to sessions), requires explicit confirmation, and warns about credit spend and downstream actions. That is substantive behavioral context an agent cannot get from the 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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and consequence before the confirmation and safety caveats. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, confirmation requirements, and side effects adequately. The final sentence about runs spending credits is slightly tangential to a delete operation and mildly muddies the focus, keeping it from a 5.

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 schema fully documents account, confirm, and evaluation_id. The description reinforces that confirmation is mandatory and tied to 'this exact account operation' but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the evaluation') plus the concrete consequences — it stops running, disappears from lists, and prior results persist on sessions. This distinguishes it from sibling mutators like delete_skill, delete_brain_source, and update_organization_evaluation.

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?

Gives clear conditional guidance ('Explicit confirmation is required for this exact account operation') and a warning not to auto-resubmit unknown outcomes. It does not name a sibling alternative (e.g., update_organization_evaluation or a cancel-type tool) for cases where deletion is not intended, so it falls just short of the top band.

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