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. It discloses only that the operation deletes and returns a confirmation message, but fails to mention irreversibility, potential side effects (like removing connected elements), or permission requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a significant gap.

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?

Structured with a purpose statement, mode explanations, Args, and Returns. Minor redundancy ('Delete an asset flow...' repeated) but overall concise and 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?

The description covers the basic modes and return type, but leaves ambiguity about parameter precedence (what if both 'id' and 'ids' are provided, or neither) and does not clarify that the schema allows both to be null. This is a notable gap for a tool with optional parameters.

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 description clearly explains the 'id' and 'ids' parameters, including their single/batch roles and the fact that 'id' is required for single-item mode. This compensates for the schema's zero description coverage and adds meaningful semantics.

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 'Delete an asset flow from the system' with a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings by mentioning batch support via 'ids'. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear usage instructions for single and batch modes, but no explicit exclusions or comparisons to alternative deletion tools. The guidance is sufficient for most scenarios, though it could specify 'use this only for asset flows'.

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