delete_visual

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

The destructiveHint annotation already flags this as a write operation, but the description adds real value beyond it: it discloses that the layout element is removed alongside the visual (a side effect not obvious from the name) and that a backup is automatically created first. It stops short of permissions or reversibility details, so 4 rather than 5.

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?

One sentence of purpose followed by a front-loaded WARNING block. Every sentence carries information an agent needs (destructive, layout element removal, automatic backup), with no 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?

With annotations covering the safety profile and an output schema covering return values, the description only needs to convey destructive semantics — which it does, including the backup guarantee. It is slightly thin on preconditions (e.g., whether the analysis must be in an editable state), but nothing essential is missing.

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% and both required parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a visual from a QuickSight analysis'), which cleanly separates it from delete_sheet, delete_empty_sheets, and delete_calculated_field. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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?

Usage is implied by the delete verb and the analysis_id/visual_id scope, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance. Since no sibling tool performs visual deletion, the lack of alternatives is tolerable, keeping this at minimum-viable rather than poor.

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