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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that remaining steps are renumbered, the returned list reflects new 1-based indices, and deleting the appLaunch step (index 1) is rejected. This meaningfully exceeds schema info. Could add more (e.g., confirmation behavior, irreversible action warning), but the critical behaviors are disclosed.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive. Front-loaded with the primary action, then usage rationale with concrete examples, then behavioral notes on renumbering and the appLaunch restriction, then a pointer for obtaining the index. Zero 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?

Complexity is moderate (delete operation with renumbering behavior and a restriction). The description handles the important edge cases (appLaunch rejection, renumbering, index source). No output schema exists, but the description explains what the return reflects (renumbered step list). Could mention idempotency or failure behavior, but coverage is solid for this operation.

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 both parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds that stepIndex should come from a flow_recording_action / flow_recording_get response, which is useful cross-tool context beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add format or meaning beyond what schema provides for either parameter.

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?

Clear verb+resource ('Delete one step from an in-progress recording'). Distinct from siblings (flow_recording_replace_step, flow_recording_insert_component, flow_recording_save) since it specifically removes a step from an in-progress recording before save. Also states the limitation (cannot delete appLaunch step, index 1).

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?

Clearly states when to use: removing a mis-recorded step without discarding and re-recording the whole flow. Provides concrete examples (assert bound to wrong element, stray tap). Context that it must happen before flow_recording_save and references sibling tool flow_recording_action/flow_recording_get for obtaining stepIndex. Doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the flow-recording operation family is clear.

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