delete-run

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

The description discloses the 'soft-delete' nature, implying reversibility. However, it does not explain what soft-delete entails (e.g., marked as deleted, recoverable with restore-run), permissions required, or side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but provides only partial transparency.

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, clear sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key information: action, resource, and method. Every word 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?

Given the simple one-parameter tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is mostly complete. It could mention that the run is soft-deleted and can be restored via restore-run. Minor gap, but adequate for typical use.

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 input schema has 100% coverage; the parameter 'runId' is described as 'Run ID to delete'. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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 (delete), resource (run), and method (soft-delete). It distinguishes from siblings like restore-run, implying soft-delete is reversible. The verb and resource are specific, leaving no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., hard delete via other means). There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or when not to use. The context suggests soft-delete can be undone, but this is not explicit.

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