delete_automation

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the soft-delete behavior, recoverability (30 days), immediate cessation of evaluation, hiding from list_automations, and preservation of audit trail. It also mentions the permanent deletion parameter.

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 somewhat verbose but each sentence adds value (behavior, recovery, usage condition). It is well-structured and front-loads the key behavior. Minor redundancy could be trimmed, but overall effective.

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 the simple parameter and existence of an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, effects, recovery, audit trail, and usage guidance. It is complete for a delete tool.

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?

Only one parameter (trigger_id) with 0% schema coverage, but the description makes it clear that the parameter identifies the trigger to delete. No additional validation or format details are given, but the context is sufficient for a single 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 explicitly states it soft-deletes a trigger, explains the recovery window, and distinguishes it from permanent deletion. The verb 'soft-deletes' and resource 'trigger' are specific, and it references the sibling tool restore_automation.

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 a dedicated 'USE WHEN' section with concrete examples and contrasts with hard delete. It clearly tells the agent when to use this tool and mentions restore_automation as an alternative for undoing.

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