delete_automation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the destructive side effect (run log is deleted alongside the rule), the auth requirement (admin only), and an environment restriction (hosted API only). It stops short of stating irreversibility, confirmation behavior, or error conditions when the ID does not exist.

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 sentence with the deletion action and its side effect front-loaded, followed by two compact qualifiers. No filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs (what is destroyed, required privilege, supported environment). Only the irreversibility/confirmation aspect of a delete is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already describes it at 100% coverage ('Automation rule ID to delete'). The phrase 'by ID' in the description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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) plus a precise resource (an automation rule and its run log), so the agent knows exactly what is removed. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the resource differs clearly from delete_recurrence, delete_webhook, and update_automation.

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?

Gives two real gating conditions — admin privilege required and hosted-API-only — which tell the agent when this call is valid. It does not, however, point to alternatives (e.g., update_automation for disabling instead of deleting) or say when deletion is inappropriate.

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