delete_saved_request

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

The annotation already declares destructiveHint=true, so the description's real contribution is scoping the destruction: history entries survive, so this is a partial, non-cascading delete. It also notes the tool returns what was removed, but does not say whether the removal is reversible or requires confirmation.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the scope of deletion front-loaded before the return-value note. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the return-value sentence is bonus rather than necessity, and the destructive annotation carries the safety signal. The only real gap is irreversibility/permission requirements for a delete, which the description does not address.

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 the name parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by name' merely repeats that, adding no format or resolution semantics of its own — baseline 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?

States a specific verb (Remove), resource (saved request), and identifier (by name), which cleanly separates it from delete_variable and delete_workflow in the sibling set. An agent can route to it without opening any 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 resource name, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., delete_variable for variables, or whether history must be cleared separately), and no preconditions. Adequate but leaves routing inference to the agent.

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