Delete Flow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description's "permanently" and "cannot be undone" largely restate the structured signal, though the permanence emphasis adds some weight. It does not cover behavior on a non-existent ID, effect on running flows, or any cascading deletion of versions/variables.

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, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning. Nothing is wasted and nothing important is buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description is functionally sufficient but thin: it does not say what happens to flow versions, variables, or running instances, nor what an error for an unknown ID looks like. Annotations cover the safety profile, so this is a moderate gap rather than a critical one.

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% for the single id parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's "by ID" adds no format or constraint detail beyond it, matching the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 ("Permanently delete an Appmixer flow") plus the lookup key ("by ID"), which distinguishes it from sibling mutation tools like stop_flow or update_flow. It stops short of explicit sibling differentiation, but the name and wording make the target unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive wording, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of stop_flow, or whether a flow must be stopped first. An agent must infer the preconditions.

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