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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing that the flow is recoverable for 30 days and permanently deleted afterward.

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 are front-loaded with the core action and immediately explain the important deletion timeline. There is no redundant or filler text.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the schema documents flow_id and the annotations cover safety traits. The description completes the lifecycle with the 30-day restore window, though it does not mention the response or confirmation behavior.

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 100%, so the single flow_id parameter is already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage and matches the baseline for this case.

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 states a specific action and resource: moving a flow to trash, which is clearer than a generic 'delete'. It defines the soft-delete lifecycle, but does not explicitly differentiate it from siblings such as cancel_flow or restore_flow.

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 implies when this tool is appropriate by describing the trash and 30-day restore window. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of cancel_flow, restore_flow, or other lifecycle-management tools.

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