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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds exactly the context the rubric calls for: what gets destroyed (all client grants), the blast radius (breaks the shared link for anyone who holds it), and an auth requirement (owner-only deletion). This goes well beyond the structured flags.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the irreversible action, followed by the ownership constraint and the id-sourcing hint. No sentence is redundant and each adds distinct 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 single-parameter tool, the description covers permanence, cascade scope, ownership precondition, and id discovery, while an output schema and annotations handle the return value and safety profile. Nothing an agent needs to call it 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?

With a single reportId at 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the parameter burden. It usefully explains where to source the id (list_shared_reports), but says nothing about the expected format (uuid) or edge cases like non-existent or non-owned ids.

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 precise verb and resource ('Permanently deletes a saved shareable report') and immediately extends the scope to the cascading effect ('every client grant on it'). This clearly distinguishes it from create_shared_report and list_shared_reports in the sibling set.

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?

Names the alternative that supplies the required identifier ('Find the id with list_shared_reports') and states a real precondition ('Only reports owned by the authenticated user can be deleted'). It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use note, but the routing and eligibility constraint give solid guidance.

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