delete_visual

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose destructive nature and side effects. It simply says 'Delete a visual' without mentioning permanence, irreversibility, or any required permissions. This is a significant gap for a deletion 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 concise sentence with the action front-loaded. It is not verbose, but it is too terse, omitting valuable context that could be added without sacrificing 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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits any note on session requirements, error handling for non-existent visuals, or reversibility. It also fails to differentiate from bulk_delete_visuals within the sibling-tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description only clarifies visualName as the identifier of the visual to delete, leaving reportSessionId and pageName unexplained. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of parameter details, especially with three required parameters.

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 a visual') and the identifier ('by its visual name'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_visual, move_visual, or bulk_delete_visuals. This is specific and unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as bulk_delete_visuals or clear_pages. The description lacks context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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