resources_delete_report

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses idempotent behavior ('No-op if it doesn't exist'), which is real value, but stays silent on whether the delete is permanent or recoverable and on any permission requirements for a destructive operation.

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 waste, with the action and its scope front-loaded and the idempotency caveat immediately after. Nothing is padded or restated from the name.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and the notable no-op behavior. It falls short only on the destructive-operation details (permanence, permissions) and on disambiguating itself from files_delete.

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?

There is exactly one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines filename as a relative path within reports/resources/. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds no path syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (delete) and a precisely scoped resource (a file under reports/resources/), which separates it from the sibling resources_add_report. It is less clearly differentiated from files_delete, since neither the name nor the description explains when the reports-scoped variant should be preferred.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and the near-twin sibling files_delete is never mentioned. The 'No-op if it doesn't exist' clause implicitly signals safe repeated invocation, but the agent must infer selection between the two delete tools.

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