Delete a saved matching report

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false. The description adds real value beyond them by scoping the blast radius: it does not alter source documents or prior invoice history, and it consumes/releases a free-tier storage slot. It still omits whether deletion is reversible and what happens on a repeat delete of the same id.

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 filler, with the core action first and the side-effect negation second. Nothing could be cut without losing signal.

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 with no output schema, the description covers the key non-effects and the quota consequence, which is most of what an agent needs. Minor gaps remain around reversibility and error behavior, but annotations carry the mutation profile.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents the UUID format and points to report_list/three_way_match as sources. The description's 'by id' adds nothing the schema does not, so the baseline 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?

The description names a specific verb (delete) and resource (a saved report, by id), which cleanly separates it from siblings like report_list, report_get, and report_export_csv. It does not explicitly name which sibling is the alternative, but the resource scope is unambiguous.

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?

It hints at why one would call it ('freeing a free-tier storage slot'), which implies the use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of alternatives (e.g. report_get to inspect before deleting), and no prerequisite or confirmation guidance.

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