delete_parameter

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true, while the description adds real behavioral context: cascading breakage of filters/calculated fields/controls, the recommended pre-check, and the important fact that a backup is automatically created before deletion. This is exactly the value the description should add.

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?

Front-loads the action, then a clearly delineated WARNING, remediation, and a reassurance about backups. Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with zero filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. For a destructive two-parameter mutation, the description covers blast radius, prerequisites, and recovery, leaving nothing an agent needs to know before calling it.

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%, so both analysis_id and parameter_name are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, which matches the baseline 3.

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) plus resource (parameter) and scope (from a QuickSight analysis). It is clearly distinguishable from the many other delete_* siblings such as delete_calculated_field, delete_visual, and delete_sheet.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to 'Check get_parameters first to understand dependencies,' naming the concrete alternative prerequisite. It does not state when-not to use the tool, so it falls just short of the top tier.

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