delete_automation

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint true, readOnlyHint false, and idempotentHint true. The description adds no additional behavioral context—it does not mention permanence, side effects, or what happens to associated data. It merely restates the operation, providing no value beyond the annotations.

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, concise sentence that states the purpose without any fluff. It is front-loaded and efficient, earning its place. However, it is minimal, and additional context could be added without violating conciseness.

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 delete operation with one parameter and annotations covering destructive and idempotent behavior, the description is adequate but not thorough. It lacks a note about permanence or reversibility, which would be useful for a destructive action. Given the tool's simplicity and annotation coverage, this is acceptable but leaves room for improvement.

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 input schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with a description ('Automation ID to delete'), achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies as the schema carries the semantic load.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'automation', which conveys the tool's purpose without being a tautology. It distinguishes from sibling delete tools (e.g., delete_ticket, delete_user) by naming the specific resource. However, it doesn't add any extra specificity beyond the name, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. While the resource name implies its use, there is no explicit instruction, so the agent must infer usage. This falls short of even implied usage guidance.

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