delete_output_tool

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses the return shape (deleted metadata with deleted=True) and the failure mode (raises if no output has that id). It does not explicitly call out irreversibility or auth requirements, but the destructive nature and error contract are clear.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return value, then error behavior. No wasted words and the id-discovery hint arrives exactly where needed.

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 single-parameter mutation with an output schema, everything an agent needs is present: the action, how to source the id, the success return, and the failure condition. Nothing material is missing.

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% and the single parameter already documents its type and provenance (from list_outputs_tool). The description only restates 'by id', adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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), resource (saved report output), and scope (one, by id), which cleanly distinguishes it from list_outputs_tool and prune_outputs_tool. An agent knows exactly what operation this performs without opening the schema.

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?

Directs the agent to list_outputs_tool for obtaining ids, giving a clear prerequisite workflow. It does not explicitly mention the bulk-delete alternative (prune_outputs_tool) or state when-not to use this tool, so it stops short of full sibling routing.

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