evidence_report_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: the deletion is permanent, the signed document and package stop being downloadable, and the underlying case file/evidence are unaffected. This goes far beyond the structured safety hints and sets proper expectations.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning their place: purpose, destruction consequence, prerequisite, and scope boundary. No filler or redundancy; critical information is front-loaded and clearly structured.

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 tool with one parameter, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted (report), what becomes unavailable (downloadable document and package), what is required (prior generation), and what is not affected (case file and evidence). Combined with the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the agent has full situational awareness.

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 already provides 100% coverage with reportId described as 'MANDATORY. UUID of the report.' The description adds provenance by linking reportId to evidence_case_file_report_generate, telling the agent where to obtain a valid ID. This is a meaningful addition beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently deletes a generated report by its reportId.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling report tools like pdf_url_get or zip_url_get, and from case-file deletion tools.

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 states the prerequisite: 'Requires: evidence_case_file_report_generate → reportId.' It also declares a clear boundary: 'The underlying case file and its evidence are NOT touched.' This tells the agent when to use the tool and what it will not do, effectively guiding against misuse.

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