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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so destructiveness is known without the description. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the target is scoped to the current project, and the operation is refused while active runs exist. It stops short of stating whether deletion is irreversible or what happens to run history.

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, front-loaded with the action and followed by the blocking condition; no filler. The only deduction is that the second sentence is more informative than the first, and the vague "cet élément" costs precision rather than space.

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 no output schema, the description covers the mutation and its main failure precondition. It leaves the identifier semantics unexplained and says nothing about irreversibility or the result of a successful call, which an agent deciding to invoke a delete tool would want.

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% — the single required parameter `id` has only a type, no description. The description must therefore compensate, but "cet élément" gives no hint that `id` is a flow identifier versus a project or record identifier. Nothing is added beyond the schema.

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?

"Supprimer" is a specific verb, but the object is referred to only as "cet élément" (this element) — the resource type 'flow' appears solely in the tool name and title, not in the description. Compared with siblings such as delete_record, delete_collection, or delete_presentation, the description alone does not let an agent confirm what kind of element is being removed.

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?

The description supplies one concrete precondition — active executions block deletion — which is real guidance about when the call will fail. It does not name any alternative tool (e.g. run_flow to inspect/stop executions first) nor say when the agent should avoid deleting altogether.

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