delete_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses soft-delete behavior (recoverable, not shown in list_flows until restored) and two 409 causes. Lacks details on permissions or side effects, but core behavioral traits are well covered.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero waste. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose/behavior, version requirement, error troubleshooting. No redundant or filler content.

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 3 required parameters, no output schema, and the complexity of delete + recoverable + conflict handling, the description is complete. It covers what the tool does, error conditions, and recovery path, enabling correct agent invocation.

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% (baseline 3). Description adds value beyond schema by explaining why 'expectedVersion' is needed ('Read it first for its version') and how to interpret 409 errors. Does not expand on 'confirm' parameter, but overall enriches parameter understanding.

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?

Clearly states 'Delete a flow' and immediately qualifies it as destructive but recoverable (soft-delete). Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like restore_flow and list_deleted_flows by mentioning recovery and visibility behavior.

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?

Provides explicit guidance to read the flow first for its version and explains two distinct 409 error scenarios (stale version vs. reference conflict). Gives actionable advice: re-read for stale version, error message for conflicts. No explicit when-not-to-use, but the recoverable nature is clear.

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