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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two genuinely useful traits: the record is retained ('kept for the record') and the name becomes reusable. That is real value beyond the schema. It still omits permissions required, whether run history or schedules referencing the report are affected, and whether the operation is reversible.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the operation first and the clarifying consequence in a parenthetical. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

Hmm—reconsidering: an output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and the soft-delete nuance is the main ambiguity an agent would have. However, for a destructive operation with zero annotations, the absence of any note on permissions, affected schedules, or confirmation expectations leaves a real gap. Score 3.

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?

One required parameter at 0% schema description coverage; the only structured signal is type string/format uuid. The description never mentions report_id or how to obtain one (presumably from reports_listSaved). It neither compensates for the coverage gap nor misleads, so it sits at the minimum-viable level.

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 ('Remove') and a specific resource ('a saved report'), which cleanly separates it from reports_save, reports_run, and reports_listSaved in the sibling set. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating scope conditions, but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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 says what the tool does but never says when to reach for it versus reports_save or reports_listSaved, nor any prerequisite (ownership, confirmation, effect on scheduled runs). The parenthetical hints at soft-delete semantics but is framed as a consequence, not guidance.

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