delete_instance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a clearly destructive operation. It reveals only that the target is a 'historical' execution instance; it says nothing about permanence/irreversibility, required privileges, or effect on scheduled runs. That is a thin disclosure for a delete.

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 no filler or redundancy; the verb-resource statement comes first. It is efficient, though arguably too terse given the destructive nature of the tool.

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 values need not be explained. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description omits the behavioral and usage context an agent needs to invoke it safely and correctly.

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% for the single required parameter instance_id, and the description never explains what an instance identifier is or where to obtain it. The word 'instance' only loosely hints at the parameter, so the description does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 ('Deletes') and a specific resource ('historical report execution instance from the CMS repository'), which is naturally distinct from sibling resources like documents, folders, sessions, and datapoints. It does not explicitly name or contrast with the nearest siblings (get_instance_details, get_doc_instances), so it stops short of full 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?

The description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites (e.g. permissions or whether the instance must be finished), and no mention of alternatives such as get_instance_details for inspection first. Nothing helps an agent decide when this tool is the right call.

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