treeflow_delete_intent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavior disclosure. 'Elimina' clearly signals a destructive action, but it does not specify whether deletion is permanent, what happens to references to the intent, or if any other side effects occur. It is transparent about the core operation but lacks safety caveats.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and states the object and scope succinctly. For a simple two-parameter delete operation, this level of conciseness is ideal.

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 low complexity (two simple required parameters, full schema coverage, no nested objects, no output schema), the description covers the basics needed to select and invoke the tool. The missing context is mostly about consequences or obtaining the intent_id, which would improve completeness but is not critical for a straightforward delete call.

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%, and both 'tree_id' and 'intent_id' already have descriptive meanings. The description adds no additional parameter context beyond repeating that an intent is being deleted. The schema does the necessary work, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Elimina'), the exact resource ('intención NLU'), and its scope ('de un bot'). It clearly differentiates from sibling delete tools like delete_branch, delete_leaf, or delete_entity. An agent can confidently know this tool is for deleting intents.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as treeflow_update_intent or treeflow_list_intents. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as retrieving the intent_id firstvia treeflow_list_intents, or any exclusions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Elimina'.

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