superset_dashboard_delete

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates critical behavioral traits: the operation is permanent and cannot be undone, and it makes a DELETE request to a specific API endpoint. This covers the destructive nature and API interaction, though it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions.

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 perfectly structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by implementation details and behavioral warning, then parameter and return documentation. Every sentence adds value with zero wasted words, making it highly 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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well: it explains the permanent nature, documents the single parameter, and describes the return value. However, it doesn't cover potential errors, authentication needs, or confirmation prompts, leaving some gaps in completeness for such a high-stakes operation.

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 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter, the description must compensate. It clearly explains that 'dashboard_id' is the 'ID of the dashboard to delete', adding essential meaning beyond the schema's basic type information. This adequately documents the parameter's purpose, though it doesn't specify format constraints or provide examples.

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 specific action ('Delete a dashboard') and identifies the resource ('dashboard'), making the purpose immediately evident. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like superset_dashboard_create, superset_dashboard_get_by_id, superset_dashboard_list, and superset_dashboard_update by specifying the destructive delete operation.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (to permanently remove a dashboard) and implicitly distinguishes it from alternatives like dashboard update or get operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternative tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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