Delete a saved goal, funnel, journey, or retention report

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable context beyond that: 'This cannot be undone', the confirm requirement, and the exact return shape. It does not contradict the annotations, even with idempotentHint=true.

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 concise, front-loaded, and well-structured with clear Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value, including the cross-reference to the sibling tool and the irreversible-warning.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema. The description covers how to obtain the ID, the confirm requirement, the alternative for segments/cohorts, and the return value. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it 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 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters. The description's Args section mostly repeats the schema text, though it does reinforce that confirm must be true and cannot be undone. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a saved report (goal, funnel, journey, or retention)' and clarifies the effect ('no longer appears in the Umami UI'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling umami_delete_segment_cohort by explicitly naming the alternative for segments/cohorts.

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 explicitly tells the agent how to get the report ID ('Get the report ID from umami_list_saved_reports'), when not to use this tool ('For a segment or cohort, use umami_delete_segment_cohort instead'), and the required confirmation flag ('Requires confirm=true'). This is clear, actionable guidance.

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