delete_saved_search

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a mutating operation, but the description adds real value by disclosing the cascading effect: the associated seen-listing history is also deleted. It does not state whether the deletion is reversible or requires special permissions, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tightly worded sentence that front-loads the action and includes the cascade effect without padding. No wasted clauses, though it is very sparse.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is unnecessary, and the destructive annotation plus the cascade disclosure cover the key behavioral risk. The remaining gap is the unnamed/unexplained parameter and the absence of any irreversibility or error-condition context.

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?

The single parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage and the description never clarifies that it is the saved search's name, whether it is case-sensitive, or what happens on a mismatch. With low coverage, the description should compensate and does not.

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 search) plus an important secondary effect (seen-listing history). It is clearly distinguishable from save_search, check_saved_search, and list_saved_searches, though it never explicitly names a sibling for differentiation.

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?

"Delete" implies the use case, but there is no guidance on when to use this versus check_saved_search or list_saved_searches, no prerequisites, and no warning about conditions under which deletion should be avoided.

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