delete_flow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what files are deleted but does not mention whether the operation is irreversible, whether it affects dependent scenarios or references, whether it requires special permissions, or what happens on error. A destructive operation like this needs more context to be safely invoked.

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, efficient sentence that leads with the verb and resource, then lists the affected files. No filler, no repetition, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

Given that the tool is a destructive delete with no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not state whether the operation is idempotent, what response or error handling to expect, or whether deleting a flow could break references from scenarios or suites. An agent has to infer too much.

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 50%: the 'project' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'flowId' is not. The tool description adds no information about either parameter—it does not explain what flowId refers to, how to obtain it, or how the project parameter interacts with the environment variable. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 action (delete) and the resource (a flow), and even enumerates the exact files removed (.flow.json, .flow.ts, flowData.ts). This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from creation, listing, or metadata tools.

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 like create_flow or set_flow_meta. No mention of prerequisites, sequencing, or cases where deletion is inappropriate. The description simply states what it does, leaving usage decisions entirely to the agent.

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