report_delete

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job by revealing that deletion affects both the database record and the file under reports/. It stops short of stating irreversibility or error behavior, but the destructive scope is clearly communicated.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no filler. The verb is front-loaded, and the parenthetical detail about DB + file is substantive rather than redundant.

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?

The description is minimally viable for a simple destructive tool: it says what is deleted and the single required parameter is inferable. However, it lacks guidance on finding valid report names, error behavior when the name is not found, and confirmation of permanence, which leaves some context gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented 'name' parameter. It only implies that 'name' identifies the saved report and does not clarify how names are resolved, expected formats, or how to obtain valid names. This is a meaningful gap for a single-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Deletes') and resource ('saved report'), and includes the scope of deletion ('DB + file under reports/'). This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings like report_get and report_list and from other delete tools like test_delete.

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 implies the tool is for removing a saved report, which separates it from retrieval tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor mention any prerequisites such as first using report_list to find valid names.

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