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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Delete' implies a destructive write, but the description never states whether the deletion is permanent or recoverable, what permissions are required, or what happens to a report referenced elsewhere. Siblings like restore_name and list_deleted_names suggest a restore/soft-delete concept exists in this API, yet the description is silent on which applies here.

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?

One short sentence with the action and identifier front-loaded and zero wasted words. Appropriately sized for a single-parameter destructive operation.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits reversibility, required permissions, and error behavior for an invalid or already-deleted ID. An agent can invoke it, but cannot predict the consequences of doing so.

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 single 'id' parameter is already documented in the schema. The description's 'numeric ID' phrasing adds only a marginal hint beyond the schema's integer type. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Delete an online report') plus the identifier type, so the action is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the other delete_* siblings (delete_database, delete_name, delete_import_template), though the distinct resource noun makes misrouting unlikely.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given; there is no mention of prerequisites, confirmation expectations, or an alternative such as list_reports for finding the ID. The agent must infer the usage context entirely from the tool name.

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