Delete a saved request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds genuine value beyond that by disclosing that examples are deleted along with the request and that deletion surfaces in the next Git commit and is restorable from history. It stops short of stating permission requirements or what happens outside a Git workspace.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the mutation and its cascade front-loaded before the recovery caveat. Every clause carries information an agent needs.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers cascade effects and recoverability, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits permission/prerequisite expectations and the permanence of deletion in non-Git workspaces (only implied).

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 the single 'request' parameter is documented as an id or Collection/Folder/Name path, so the schema carries the load. The description adds nothing about accepted path forms or how an ambiguous name is resolved, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 resource (saved request) plus the cascading scope ('and its examples'), which an agent can immediately separate from save_request, get_request, and list_requests. The Git-workspace clause further scopes what the operation affects.

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?

Deleting a saved request is self-evidently the inverse of save_request, and the Git clause hints at when recovery is possible, but the description never explicitly says when to use this versus alternatives like create_collection or how to handle a request that merely needs editing. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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