delete_automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It transparently discloses that the deletion is 'permanent' and cascades to 'all its scheduled jobs', which is critical for a destructive operation. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two sentences—a clear action statement and a simple parameter definition—with no fluff. The Args block is conventional and well-structured.

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 delete tool with one parameter, the description covers the action, the parameter format, and the primary side effect. It lacks an explicit note on return values or error behavior, but the tool's simplicity and no output schema make this acceptable.

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 schema provides only the parameter name and type (string). The description adds that automation_id is 'The automation UUID', which clarifies the expected format though it does not specify where to obtain it or details like requiredness (already in schema). This is minimal additional meaning.

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 uses the specific verb 'delete' with resource 'automation' and explicitly states 'all its scheduled jobs' are removed, clearly differentiating it from sibling tools like delete_schedule. The verb+resource+scope is immediately understandable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_schedule or update_automation. However, the naming and description make the use case clear: permanent removal of an automation and its scheduled jobs, implying use when an automation is no longer needed.

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