delete_report

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description goes well beyond by explaining the deletion is permanent, irreversible, audit-logged, and limited to the report instance (not definition/schedules). It also discloses the confirmation/preview behavior and the error condition for nonexistent IDs, adding substantial behavioral context not present in annotations or schema.

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 well-structured with a concise explanatory paragraph followed by an Args section. Every sentence contributes meaningful information, and the inclusive 'Args' block is consistent with the schema. The length is appropriate for the complexity of a destructive operation with a safety confirmation flag.

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 the tool has no output schema and only three simple parameters, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, what is preserved, irreversibility, audit logging, error behavior, prerequisites, and the preview mechanism. It is complete enough for an agent to safely and correctly invoke the tool.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameters. It clearly explains report_id as a UUID from generate_report or list_reports, confirmed must be True to actually delete (default False preview), and target as an Aria target name from config with a default. This fully compensates for the schema's minimal titles.

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 uses a specific verb 'Permanently delete' plus the resource 'generated report artifact' and clearly distinguishes from siblings by noting that only the report instance is removed while definitions and schedules remain. It also connects to generate_report for recreation, which differentiates it from related tools like get_report or list_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 provides clear context: it is for deleting generated report instances, tells the user to call list_reports first to find valid UUIDs, and notes that re-running generate_report recreates the artifact. It does not explicitly say 'when not to use' or name an alternative tool for deleting report definitions, but the context is sufficient and the sibling list reinforces the intended use.

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