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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond that: it enumerates the concrete cascade — schedules stop, share links die, evals can no longer run and show flowOk: false — and discloses the needs_confirmation return. This is exactly the destructive-side-effect context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loads the action, then the cascade effects, then the pre-check and alternative guidance, closing with the return caveat. Dense but every clause earns its place; no filler.

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 destructive, no-output-schema tool, the description supplies the cascade consequences, the two sibling pre-checks, the safer alternative, and the confirmation protocol. Nothing an agent needs to call this safely is missing.

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 flowId, workspace, and approvalId are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds the needs_confirmation/approvalId linkage in the return note but does not enrich the individual parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (Deletes) and resource (a flow), and immediately distinguishes itself from the sibling workbench_flows_update by naming the archive alternative. An agent can tell this apart from workbench_flows_update and workbench_flows_schedules_delete without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: prefer workbench_flows_update with archived: true when the user just wants it 'out of the way', and points at caliper_flow_performance and workbench_flows_schedules_list to check before proposing. Names both the alternatives and the conditions selecting them.

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