report_delete

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

The description aligns with the annotations: readOnlyHint is false and destructiveHint is true, so the agent understands this is a mutating, destructive operation. However, the description adds no context beyond the annotation, such as whether deletion is permanent, requires specific permissions, or removes associated data. The annotation covers the basic safety profile, so this is adequate but not enriched.

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 description is very short and front-loaded, but it essentially restates the tool name without adding value. It is not bloated, yet it is too sparse to be considered well-structured for a destructive operation that could benefit from a brief consequence or usage note. It is concise but under-specified.

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 two-parameter delete operation with annotations already marking it destructive and the schema fully describing the parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. However, it lacks any mention of side effects, irreversibility, or what happens after deletion, and there is no output schema to clarify the response. It is minimally complete for invocation but not richly contextual.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (workspaceId and reportId) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how the parameters relate, such as the report belonging to the workspace. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 clear verb and resource: it deletes a report. This distinguishes it from sibling delete tools for other resources and from report operations like report_get, report_update, or report_clone. It is slightly tautological with the tool name but remains unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as report_update, report_clone, or report_export. It also does not mention prerequisites like listing reports first to obtain the reportId. The intended usage is implied by the name and description, but not explicitly supported.

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