delete_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrasing 'Mark ... deleted' usefully implies a soft-delete rather than a hard delete, but it does not disclose permissions, reversibility, side effects, or idempotency.

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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted text. It is appropriately compact for a one-parameter mutation tool, though it is terse to the point of leaving behavioral context unstated.

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 low-complexity tool with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description gives enough information to invoke the operation. However, as a no-annotation mutation tool, it should disclose more about permissions, reversibility, and side effects to be fully complete.

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 100%, so the workflowId parameter is already documented as the workflow ID to delete. The description adds 'by ID' but no additional meaning beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for fully covered parameters.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: it marks a legacy bridge workflow record as deleted by ID. That is clear enough to distinguish it from list_flows, trigger_flow, create_flow, and status-related siblings, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor when not to use it. It also omits prerequisites such as whether the workflow must be inactive or whether the operation is reversible.

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