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 established. The description adds real value beyond them by specifying the irreversible nature and the resulting behavioral state ('can no longer be sent') plus a confirm-first workflow requirement, though it omits what happens to in-flight sends or existing responses.

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 compact sentences, effect first and the destructive warning second. Every clause carries information and nothing is padding.

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 no-output mutation whose annotations already cover safety, the description supplies purpose, irreversibility, and required confirmation. The main remaining gap is not clarifying how deprecation differs from the sibling delete_whatsapp_flow, but the essentials needed to call it correctly are present.

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% (including the idempotencyKey semantics), so the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents all three parameters.

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 ('Deprecate a published flow') plus the concrete effect ('so it can no longer be sent'). It is distinguishable from create/publish/list/send flow actions, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close sibling delete_whatsapp_flow.

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?

Gives a clear precondition ('a published flow') and an operational instruction ('Cannot be undone; confirm with the user first'), which tells the agent to gate the call behind user consent. It stops short of naming an alternative (e.g. delete_whatsapp_flow or unpublish) or explaining when deprecation is preferred over deletion.

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