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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail the annotations cannot express: new events stop starting runs, but in-flight runs are allowed to complete. It stops short of saying whether the automation record itself is recoverable or whether dependent resources are affected.

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 with zero filler, and the core action is front-loaded before the side-effect clarification. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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 and annotations that already flag destructiveness, this is nearly sufficient: the side effect on running executions is the main thing an agent needs. What is missing is whether deletion is permanent or retrievable, and whether verification via get-automation is advisable first.

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, and the schema documents it fully with the expected format ('Automation ID (aut_xxx)') at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 an automation') and immediately defines what deletion means operationally. It does not explicitly contrast with the very close siblings pause-automation, stop-automation, or cancel-automation-run, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'runs already in progress finish' hints that this differs from stopping or cancelling a run, but the description never says when to choose delete vs stop-automation vs pause-automation. No prerequisites or warnings about permanence are given, leaving the agent to infer them from the sibling list.

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