delete_automation_rule

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses irreversibility ("cannot be undone"), a non-obvious side effect (conversations it already acted on keep their changes), and the required permission scope. These are exactly the behavioral facts an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 destructive warning and the alternative are front-loaded ahead of boilerplate, which is the right ordering. Minor waste exists in the leading line restating the tool name and trailing metadata ("Tags: Automations") that adds nothing for an agent.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers every decision-relevant fact: permanence, residual effects, permission requirement, and the safe alternative. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% for the single `id` parameter, which the schema already labels as an automation rule ID path parameter. The description reinforces this with the `DELETE /api/v1/automations/rules/{id}` route, confirming how the ID is bound, though it adds no new constraints or ID format details.

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 verb and resource ("Permanently deletes a rule") plus the scope of the effect, making it immediately distinguishable from the non-destructive sibling `toggle_automation_rule`. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit when-not and names the alternative: "To stop a rule without losing it, use `toggle_automation_rule`." Combined with the permission prerequisite (`automations:manage`), the routing decision is fully determined.

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