superset_delete_dashboard

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does add one important side effect: 'This does not delete the charts on it; they remain in Superset.' However, it omits other relevant behaviors such as irreversibility, permission requirements, or failure conditions, leaving gaps in the safety profile 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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word adds value: the first states the action, the second clarifies an important side effect. There is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

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?

Given that this is a simple tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers the core function and its most immediate consequence (charts are preserved). It does not delve into broader context like error handling or reversibility, but the tool's complexity is low, making this a reasonably complete description.

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 input schema has one parameter (dashboard_id) but schema description coverage is 0%. The description merely says 'by id,' which adds minimal meaning beyond the parameter name and type. It does not explain what an id is, how to find it, or any format/validation details, so it fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 identifies the action as 'Delete a dashboard by id,' using a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like superset_delete_chart and superset_update_dashboard by focusing specifically on dashboard deletion, and adds a clarifying note about charts not being deleted.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states the function without contextual 'use this when' advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and sibling context.

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