Delete a personal flow

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

Goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true) by disclosing that the text remains in history and that removing a local copy of a built-in restores the built-in. It omits any mention of the expected_revision concurrency guard or permission requirements, which matters for a destructive operation.

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 tight sentences with the core action and precondition front-loaded and no filler. The inline "(user:/repo:)" fragment is slightly cryptic without surrounding explanation, and the second sentence is somewhat tangential to the primary action.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations already cover the safety profile. However, for a destructive operation the description leaves the required expected_revision argument unexplained and does not clarify reversibility beyond "stays in history," so it is only adequate.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only workspace is documented). The description partially compensates by revealing the flow identifier format (user:/repo:), but the required expected_revision parameter is never explained in either the schema or the description, leaving a mandatory argument opaque on a delete.

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 (Delete) plus resource (personal flow) and scopes it with the identifier prefixes (user:/repo:), immediately routing the agent away from get_flow/list_flows/save_flow. The built-in-shadowing sentence further distinguishes personal-flow deletion from any built-in semantics.

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?

"on explicit request" gives a clear precondition for invoking a destructive tool, and the built-in sentence explains a consequence-driven case for deletion. It does not name an alternative (e.g. save_flow to overwrite) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of explicit alternative routing.

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