fluig_process_version_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully bears the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly labels the operation as 'DESTRUCTIVE', warns about the need to withdraw first, and explains the side effect of deleting the last version. This provides excellent transparency for a mutation tool.

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 description is extremely concise, using two short sentences that front-load the critical warning ('DESTRUCTIVE') and cover the essential usage constraints. Every word adds value with no redundancy.

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 the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers preconditions (withdraw first), full behavior (delete version, remove process definition if last), and the required 'confirm' parameter. However, it does not describe return values or error scenarios, which would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage; each parameter's purpose is already explained. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a process version) and specifies the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'fluig_process_version_withdraw' by noting the prerequisite to withdraw if released, and highlights an exceptional case (deleting the last version removes the entire process definition).

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?

The description provides clear usage context: the tool is for deleting a process version after withdrawing if released. It implies when to use (after withdraw) but does not explicitly state when not to use or name alternative tools (e.g., 'fluig_process_version_withdraw' for withdrawal only). The guidance is helpful but limited.

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