delete_report_intent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It reveals the destructive nature but lacks details on whether deletion is soft/hard, effects on related data, or error conditions (e.g., non-draft intents).

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 sentence with no wasted words, but it is overly minimal, providing only the bare minimum. It could be expanded without losing 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?

Given the simplicity of the operation (delete with one parameter) and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but lacks critical context such as preconditions (draft state), behavior on failure, and return value. With no annotations, more context is needed.

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 schema coverage is 100% with a clear description of 'report_intent_id'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic value beyond the schema, which is acceptable but not exemplary.

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 'Delete a draft report intent' uses a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('draft report intent'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_report_intent, create_report_intent, and update_report_intent.

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 usage guidelines are provided; the description does not state when to use this tool vs. alternatives like submit_report_intent, nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., the intent must be in draft state, permissions required).

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