state_machine_sm_delete

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

The description only states 'Delete' but does not elaborate on behavioral traits such as whether deletion is irreversible, if associated data (transitions, history) are affected, or if the operation requires confirmation. No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden.

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?

The description is very concise, using a single declarative sentence. It could benefit from slightly more detail, but it is efficiently structured and front-loaded with the tool's purpose.

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?

Given the sparse schema and no annotations, the description lacks completeness. It does not mention return values, error conditions, or how the tool fits into the broader state machine workflow. The presence of an output schema is not leveraged.

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?

The input schema has one required parameter 'name', but the description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., state machine name, identifier, or path). Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fails to compensate.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('a state machine'), precisely identifying what the tool does. It differentiates from sibling state machine tools like sm_create or sm_list.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., state machine must exist), and no mention of consequences like irreversibility. The description is purely functional without usage context.

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