h1_delete_report_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permanence ('permanently delete') and the requirement that the intent be unsubmitted, which are important safety traits. However, it does not disclose potential cascading effects on attachments, permissions required, or success/failure behavior, leaving some gaps for a destructive operation.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence of six words. It conveys the core purpose without any unnecessary content, earning a maximum score for conciseness.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, the description covers the key constraints (permanence, unsubmitted state). However, it does not address potential side effects on related attachments (given there is a separate deletion tool), nor does it describe the return value or error conditions. This leaves the description adequate but not fully complete.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter (intent_id with type and description). The tool description adds no additional semantic information about the parameter, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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'), the target ('report intent'), and a key constraint ('unsubmitted'). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like h1_delete_report_intent_attachment and h1_create_report_intent by focusing on the report intent entity itself.

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 qualifier 'unsubmitted' provides a clear condition for when this tool is appropriate, and implicitly excludes submitted report intents. However, it does not mention alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it stops short of full usage guidance.

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