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

Annotations already declare destructive and idempotent, and the description reinforces both with concrete behavior: hidden from list_flows unless include_archived, cannot be run, and re-archiving is a no-op. It also adds cost context ('Free'), which is meaningful given the estimate_cost sibling. It stops short of saying whether archiving is reversible or what permissions are needed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core effect and packed into three short sentences with no filler; 'Free.' is a terse fragment but carries real information. The closing sentence about header names, prompt text and sheet values is a prompt-injection guard rather than delete behavior, slightly diluting focus.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the important facts (effect on listing, effect on execution, idempotency, no cost) are all present. The notable omission is whether an archived flow can be restored and what authorization is required.

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 0% and the single required parameter flow_id carries no description in either schema or prose. The name and uuid format make the meaning largely self-evident, so the gap is small, but the description adds nothing about identifier form or where to obtain a flow_id.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource and immediately resolves the mismatch between the tool name 'delete_flow' and the actual behavior ('Archive a Flow'), stating the two concrete consequences: it disappears from list_flows and cannot be run. A sibling (list_flows) is referenced, which anchors the effect, but relationships to other delete_* siblings (delete_list, delete_prompt, delete_schedule) are left implicit.

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 implied rather than stated: an agent can infer 'call this to make a flow disappear and stop it from running', and the mention of include_archived hints at the viewing alternative. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement about prerequisites or permissions, and no pointer to an alternative tool for a hard removal.

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