delete_run

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it will error with candidate IDs when multiple runs match, distance matching is approximate within 0.25 mi, and unit conversion is handled internally so the agent must never convert values itself. This gives the agent important operational expectations not encoded elsewhere.

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 appropriately sized and every sentence contributes useful information, but the main purpose ('Delete a run') is not front-loaded; the tool starts with a unit-inputs caveat instead. The selector and ambiguity guidance are well organized afterward, so the structure is good but not maximally focused.

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 description covers all necessary invocation context: when to use it, confirmation behavior, how to choose between id and date, approximate matching, unit handling, and the error outcome when multiple runs match. An output schema exists, so not detailing return values is acceptable; nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds critical semantic rules not present in the schema: exactly one of id or date is required, distance_mi is ignored when id is given, distance matching is approximate, and input_distance_unit only applies when the user supplied km. These constraints materially change how the parameters should be used and are essential for correct invocation.

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 opens the second paragraph with 'Delete a run. Use when the user wants to remove a run entry,' which names a specific verb and resource and clearly distinguishes this tool from run-logging or run-listing siblings like log_run, list_runs, and show_runs. The title and name reinforce the action, and the description adds unambiguous purpose.

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 states when to use the tool ('when the user wants to remove a run entry') and instructs the agent to ask for confirmation if intent is ambiguous. It also provides selection guidance for resolving the target run, but it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use or compare against sibling deletion tools, so it stops just short of full exclusion guidance.

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