Delete one saved candidate report

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is partly covered. The description still adds real context: that deletion frees a storage slot (a side effect beyond the record) and that accounting records are unaffected. It omits that the action is non-idempotent, i.e. a repeat call on the same id behaves differently.

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 with zero filler, and the primary action plus its side effect are front-loaded before the scope caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers the action, its side effect, and its blast radius. The main remaining gap is the irreversibility/non-idempotency of the delete, which an agent would want stated explicitly.

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 a single 'id' parameter with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the burden and says nothing about it. The schema's strict UUID regex pattern does document the expected format structurally, which limits the harm, but the description adds no meaning such as where the id comes from.

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 one local saved report') and bounds the scope ('local', 'free a storage slot'). It implicitly separates itself from accounting-record tools, though it never names a sibling like report_get or report_list to sharpen the contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the resource type ('saved report') and the scope note that it does not touch accounting records, which helps an agent decide this is a local cleanup action. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of related siblings such as report_list or report_export_csv.

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