Delete Report

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds useful context beyond that: it deletes the report's content, there is no per-object undo, and the API returns specific statuses like not_found and delete_failed. This enriches the behavioral model without contradicting annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core action, followed by only the most decision-relevant behavioral details: no undo, copy-first workaround, and return statuses. Every sentence adds value and nothing is redundant.

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 one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the scope of deletion, irreversibility, a practical workaround, and expected return states. With annotations providing destructiveness/idempotency and an output schema available, an agent has enough context to invoke this tool correctly.

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 sole parameter report_id is already fully described in the input schema with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add extra meaning to the parameter itself, which is acceptable since the schema provides sufficient semantics.

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 clearly states the specific verb-resource pair: 'Delete a Visual Analytics report and its content.' This aligns with the tool name and distinguishes it from other sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_decision_flow, delete_business_ruleset, delete_glossary_term) by explicitly targeting reports.

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?

The description gives clear usage context by noting there is no per-object undo, and suggests deleting and rebuilding or copying first as the way to discard an unwanted report. It implies copy_report as an alternative for preservation but does not explicitly name it or define exclusion conditions.

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