flowforge_delete_assistant

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: permanence/irreversibility, the success response shape, and a concrete error string for an invalid ID. It omits what happens to dependent resources (campaigns, phone assignments) referencing the assistant, keeping it from a 5.

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 critical fact — permanent, irreversible deletion — is front-loaded in the first two sentences. The Args/Returns/Error Handling scaffolding is slightly heavier than needed for a one-parameter tool, but each section carries non-redundant information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the definition covers purpose, permanence, return value, and the not-found failure mode. What is missing is the side-effect story: whether deleting an assistant orphans or cascades to related campaigns, calls, or phone assignments.

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 0% at the top level, but the single nested field assistant_id already carries its own description ("ID of the assistant to delete."). The description merely restates that params maps to assistant_id, adding no format, example, or lookup guidance; adequate but thin given the coverage gap.

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 and resource ("Permanently delete an assistant") plus the irreversibility qualifier, so an agent knows exactly what the call does. It does not distinguish itself from related siblings such as flowforge_assistant_lifecycle or flowforge_update_assistant, which is the only thing missing for 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (e.g., whether flowforge_assistant_lifecycle also removes assistants or when to disable instead of delete). The "cannot be undone" warning implies caution but does not tell an agent when to choose this over another tool.

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