Delete integrity report item

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds genuine value beyond those flags by disclosing the cascading side effect ('perform corresponding deletion, e.g. trash asset, delete file'), which tells the agent that deleting a report item alters underlying asset/file state. It stops short of permission or reversibility detail.

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?

Compact and front-loaded, leading with the action and following with the side-effect clarification and the raw operation. Slight redundancy between the title line and the 'Delete a given report item' sentence, but no wasted content.

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 destructive admin delete with no output schema, the description covers the action, its cascading effect, and the endpoint/method. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation, though it could note admin permission requirements.

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% with a single 'id' (uuid) parameter, so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format or sourcing guidance for the id beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 and resource ('Delete integrity report item') and clarifies that the deletion cascades to downstream actions (trash asset, delete file). It does not, however, differentiate itself from the many sibling delete tools beyond naming the integrity-report resource. Clear verb+resource with useful scope detail.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention that it targets an admin/maintenance context (the '(admin)' label is buried in the operation string). The agent must infer usage from the resource name alone.

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