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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value the annotations don't carry: the required SULVO_API_KEY with reports:write scope. It does not explicitly state irreversibility, but destructiveHint already signals that.

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 tight sentences with the operation front-loaded and the auth requirement second. No wasted words.

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 with no output schema, it covers purpose, target, and the auth prerequisite. A brief note on irreversibility would make it fully complete, but nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Only one parameter (reportId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no format or id-source detail beyond what the schema provides; 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?

States a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('saved Sulvo advanced report'), scoped by id. This cleanly distinguishes it from save_sulvo_advanced_report and list_sulvo_advanced_reports without needing to name them.

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 implies when to use it (removing a saved report) but offers no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternatives. The prerequisite (API key/scope) is stated, which helps, but routing guidance against siblings is absent.

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