superset_chart_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and adds valuable behavioral context: it specifies the API endpoint ('/api/v1/chart/{id} DELETE'), warns that the operation is 'permanent and cannot be undone', and describes the return value. This covers key aspects like destructiveness and response format, though it lacks details on permissions or error handling.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by endpoint details, warnings, and parameter/return explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does a good job: it explains the action, endpoint, permanence, parameter, and return value. It could be more complete by addressing authentication needs or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter), it's largely sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It clearly explains the single parameter 'chart_id' as 'ID of the chart to delete', adding essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type (integer). However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., where to obtain the ID) or validation rules, leaving minor gaps.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete a chart') and specifies the resource ('a chart'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'superset_dashboard_delete' or 'superset_tag_delete' beyond the chart focus, which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing chart_id from 'superset_chart_get_by_id' or 'superset_chart_list'), nor does it contrast with other deletion tools like 'superset_dashboard_delete'. Usage context is implied but not stated.

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