delete_flow_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the action is permanent and recoverable only temporarily, which are key behaviors. However, it omits details like required permissions, error states (e.g., if versionId is invalid), or idempotency. Given the lack of annotations, more coverage would be ideal; this is adequate but not rich.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by constraints and recovery information. Every sentence adds value; no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple deletion operation.

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 there is no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what the tool does, constraints (protected versions), and recoverability via a sibling tool. It is fairly complete for a straightforward delete operation, though it could mention the return value (likely success indication) and error scenarios. The mention of recovery adds important context.

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%, so the input schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by stating that the working draft and published version are protected, implying that the versionId parameter cannot refer to those. This helps the agent understand valid values for versionId, providing extra semantic guidance.

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: 'Permanently remove one entry from a flow's version history.' It uses a specific verb ('remove') and resource ('entry from a flow's version history'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like restore_deleted_flow_version and other delete_version tools by specifying the scope and protected versions.

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 provides clear constraints: 'The working draft and the currently published version are protected and cannot be targeted this way.' It also mentions an alternative for recovery: 'Recoverable with restore_deleted_flow_version.' This gives context on when to use (for non-protected versions) and what to do if recovery is needed. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites or when NOT to use beyond the protected versions.

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