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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the irreversible nature is covered there. The description reinforces it with 'permanently' and 'cannot be undone', and adds the scope detail that all versions are deleted. It does not contradict annotations, but adds limited context beyond them since the safety profile is already in the annotations; a mid-high score because the version-scope detail is genuinely additive.

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, front-loaded sentences with zero filler. The warning is concise and earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers the essential warning and scope. The only gap is not naming a non-destructive alternative, but the core information needed to call it correctly (what it does, that it's irreversible) is present.

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?

Only one parameter, documented at 100% coverage in the schema ('The ID of the flow to delete'). With 0 params the baseline would be 4, and here the schema fully carries parameter meaning; the description adds nothing specific about flowId, which is acceptable given the schema coverage. This lands at baseline since the description does not need to compensate.

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 (delete) plus resource (flow) and states the scope (all its versions). Distinguishes cleanly from sibling delete tools like ap_delete_branch, ap_delete_step, and ap_delete_table by naming the specific resource.

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?

Clear context that this is a permanent, irreversible deletion of a flow, which implicitly tells the agent to prefer non-destructive alternatives (e.g., ap_change_flow_status) when deactivation suffices. However, it doesn't explicitly name an alternative or spell out when-not-to-use.

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