list_deleted_flow_versions

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: that it lists deleted version rows and that deleted numbers stay reserved. It does not cover permissions or pagination, but for a simple read operation this is adequate.

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 extremely concise—two sentences with no superfluous words. It front-loads the core purpose and adds a clarifying note about version numbering.

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 list tool with one parameter, the description covers the essential purpose, usage context (restore candidates), and a behavioral note. No output schema exists, so no further expectation.

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 already describes the single parameter 'id' fully. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for a 100% coverage parameter.

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 specifies the action (list), the resource (deleted version rows of a flow), and distinguishes from related tools by explicitly mentioning restore candidates for restore_deleted_flow_version. It also explains the version numbering behavior, providing unique context.

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 implicitly guides usage by linking to restore_deleted_flow_version and explaining expected gaps. It does not explicitly state when to use this vs. other list tools, but the context is sufficient for a straightforward listing operation.

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