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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds one thing the annotations cannot express: the "confirm with the user first" workflow obligation. "Cannot be undone" largely restates destructiveHint, so this is additive but not rich.

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, zero filler, with the destructive nature and the confirmation requirement front-loaded before any other consideration.

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 destructive, non-idempotent delete with full annotation coverage and a fully documented schema, the description supplies the two things an agent most needs: the draft-only restriction and the human-confirmation gate. The retry/idempotencyKey path is left entirely to the schema, and the boundary with deprecate_whatsapp_flow is unstated.

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% — flowId, accountId, and the optional idempotencyKey (including retry semantics) are all documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information, so the baseline 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 a draft flow"), and the "draft" qualifier implicitly scopes it apart from flow-lifecycle siblings like deprecate_whatsapp_flow, publish_whatsapp_flow, and upload_whatsapp_flow_json. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

"Delete a draft flow" establishes the applicable context, and "confirm with the user first" is an explicit pre-invocation requirement. It never names the alternative for non-draft flows (deprecate_whatsapp_flow), so the routing guidance is contextual rather than complete.

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