Delete Chart

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is largely covered by structured data. The description's 'permanently' usefully confirms irreversibility, but it says nothing about the effect on published charts, permission/ownership requirements, or failure behavior when the chart does not exist.

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 lines of branded boilerplate ('⚠️ DATAWRAPPER MCP TOOL ⚠️' and the server-integration sentence) and a horizontal rule consume space without informing invocation, while the substantive content is a single short sentence. The useful content is present but is padded by non-earning decoration.

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 not be explained, and annotations cover the destructive/idempotent profile. What remains missing is impact context (e.g., whether deletion affects published charts or is recoverable, and error conditions), which matters for a destructive operation.

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 parameters (chart_id, access_token) are documented in the schema, so the description is not required to compensate. It adds no extra meaning about chart_id format or token fallback behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Delete a Datawrapper chart') and adds an important scope qualifier ('permanently'). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like update_chart or publish_chart, which an agent must infer from names alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites or alternatives (e.g., 'to modify instead of remove a chart, use update_chart'), and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the only deletion path.

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