delete_report

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

The description complements annotations (destructiveHint=true) by detailing irreversibility, audit logging, and preview mode. No contradiction with annotations; adds context beyond them.

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-organized with a bold [WRITE] tag, clear sections, and logical flow. It is slightly verbose but every sentence adds value. No wasted words.

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 destructive nature and no output schema, the description fully covers behavior, parameters, prerequisites, side effects (audit log), and error conditions. It is comprehensive for 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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description fully explains each parameter: report_id as UUID from generate_report/list_reports, confirmed as boolean for preview vs deletion, and target as optional. This adds critical information beyond the schema.

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 states it permanently deletes a generated report artifact, distinguishing it from related tools like generate_report and list_reports. It explains what is removed (instance and output) and what remains (definition and schedules).

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 specifies when to use the tool (to delete a report instance) and provides prerequisites: use list_reports to find valid UUIDs. It also explains the confirmed parameter for preview behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it.

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