delete_automation

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Delete' without mentioning that deletion is likely permanent, whether associated steps or runs are removed, or what side effects occur. This is a destructive operation and deserves more warning.

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 a single compact sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the core action and includes the endpoint in parentheses without redundancy.

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 simple operation with one fully documented required parameter, the endpoint and action are enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. The main gap is the lack of side-effect or return-value information, but the low complexity keeps the description reasonably complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already described in the input schema. The endpoint 'DELETE /automations/:id' adds a small amount of context by showing id is a path parameter, which warrants the baseline 3 rather than lower.

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 identifies the action ('Delete'), the resource ('an automation'), and the exact endpoint. It is unambiguous and distinguishable from nearby siblings like delete_automation_step because the resource level is explicit.

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 usage context is only implied by the action verb and resource name; there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over stop_automation, update_automation, or delete_automation_step. An agent can infer the intended use, but the description does not state exclusions or alternatives.

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