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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation by disclosing irreversibility ('cannot be restored here'), scope (affects everyone in the project), and downstream cascade effects: dependent reports stay but render nothing and are marked unavailable, and dependent alerts self-disable at their next check. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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?

Front-loads the core action and irreversibility in the first clause, then adds consequences. Slightly dense in the second half (reports + alerts + cross-reference), but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations present and no output schema, the definition covers scope, irreversibility, and side effects on reports and alerts, plus where to inspect dependents. Nothing essential to calling it safely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters (queryId, projectId) and their provenance are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter format or constraints, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (saved query) and explicit scope ('for everyone in the project'), which separates it from other delete siblings on dashboards, notebooks, pages, etc. An agent can distinguish it from fastero_update_query and fastero_get_query without opening schemas.

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?

Clear context for when to call it and it routes the agent to fastero_list_reports to inspect dependents (and the schema points to fastero_list_queries for the id). It does not state an explicit when-not or a true alternative for removing a query, but the surrounding guidance is solid.

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