delete_action_graph

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior itself. It does disclose the preview-first option and the read-back after deletion, which are meaningful safety and verification traits. However, it does not state that deletion is permanent or irreversible, nor does it describe side effects on connected graphs, so it only partially carries the behavioral burden.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase ('preview', 'one exact', 'deletion read-back') contributes information. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and four undocumented parameters, this is too thin. It omits usage conditions, irreversible-destruction warning, and what happens to dependent graphs; the output schema can cover return shape but not these behavioral prerequisites.

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%, and the description gives no parameter-level semantics beyond implying graph_path identifies the exact graph and that a preview mode exists. It does not explain command_id or idempotency_key, so the description fails to compensate for the schema's gaps.

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 ('delete'), a specific resource ('one exact Action Graph'), and adds two distinct behaviors ('preview' and 'deletion read-back'). The 'one exact' qualifier also separates it from any bulk-delete or pattern-delete operation among siblings.

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 on when to use this versus get_action_graph, list_action_graphs, or edit_action_graph; no explanation of when preview=true vs preview=false is appropriate. The only usage signal is the name and the phrase 'preview or delete'.

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