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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds the non-obvious consequences: run history is destroyed with the automation, the action is irreversible, and live automations are hard-refused unless force is used. It also explains WHY the confirmation matters ('deleting it stops what is going out to people'), which is behavioral context no annotation provides.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with what is deleted, then irreversibility, then the refusal/force mechanics. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the error-contract burden and does so (automation_live error, force override, workspaceId omission rule echoed in the schema). For a destructive 3-parameter tool, an agent has everything needed to call it safely.

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 coverage is 67% and the schema itself documents force and workspaceId. The description still adds real meaning for force (it only matters for live automations, and requires person confirmation first), which the schema's 'Delete even if it is live' does not convey. The id parameter remains undocumented in both places, but its meaning is self-evident.

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 extends scope to 'and its run history', which distinguishes it from sibling disable_automation (a non-destructive state change) and from delete_post/delete_reply. An agent can tell exactly what is removed without opening the 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 names the alternative path ('disable it first'), the blocked case (live automation refused with automation_live), and the escape hatch ('pass force: true after the person confirms'). This is a complete when/when-not/alternative statement, with the required human-confirmation gate spelled out.

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