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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description nevertheless adds the non-obvious consequence that deletion destroys sample data, which is exactly the kind of side effect an agent needs. It does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements, so it stops short of 5.

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: the action first, the routing caution second. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 plus annotations cover the essential picture: what it removes, that it is destructive, and the safer alternative. Additional detail on cascading effects on branches or reversibility would complete it, but nothing critical 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%, including the hint to resolve valid step names via ap_flow_structure, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 and resource ('Delete a step from a flow') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ap_update_step, so an agent can route without opening either schema. The scope (a step, not a flow or branch) is 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?

Gives a clear preference rule: use ap_update_step to modify rather than deleting. It supplies the alternative and the reason, but does not spell out when deletion itself is the correct choice (e.g. removing an obsolete step) or any prerequisites such as needing the flow locked.

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