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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by detailing the full consequence set: public link stops working, automatic refresh is switched off, and any email schedule disables itself at its next due time. It also clarifies what is NOT destroyed (charts and their saved queries survive, remaining in fastero_list_reports), which is exactly the kind of side-effect transparency a destructive tool needs.

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?

Two well-formed sentences, front-loaded with the permanent/org-wide scope before the side effects and retention notes. The second sentence is dense but every clause (link, refresh, schedule, retention) earns its place. Slightly long but no filler.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers permanence, scope, downstream effects, and data retention. An agent has everything needed to warn the user and call it correctly.

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% and both parameters (projectId, dashboardId) are documented with their source tools, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no syntax or format detail about the parameters themselves, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 (Delete) and resource (dashboard) and precisely scopes it as permanent and organization-wide ('not just you'), which separates it from the softer update_dashboard sibling. An agent can tell immediately what this does and its blast radius.

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 conveys the severity and permanence of the action, which implicitly signals when caution is warranted, but it never names an alternative tool or states explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions versus siblings like update_dashboard or delete_report. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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