Delete one saved open-item check

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the description's job is to add scope, and it does: deletion frees a saved-report slot (a side effect not visible in the schema) and explicitly does not touch accounting records. It stops short of stating irreversibility or what happens when the id does not exist.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the material blast-radius caveat. Nothing redundant or padded.

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 supplies the essential context: what is removed, what side effect occurs, and what is unaffected. Only irreversibility and not-found behavior are left unaddressed.

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 burden for the single 'id' parameter and says nothing about it. However, the schema's strict UUID-v4 pattern is self-documenting enough that an agent can supply a valid value, and 'one local comparison report' makes clear the id selects a single report.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete one local comparison report') that maps cleanly onto the tool name, and it distinguishes the target as a local saved report rather than an accounting record. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like report_get or report_list, but the delete semantics are 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?

Usage is implied: it is for removing an unwanted saved report and freeing a slot, and the caveat that accounting records are untouched hints this is a cleanup action rather than a data-correction one. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to an alternative tool.

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