cigchat_flow_delete_closing_note

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently warns that the operation is 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible', states the required permission scope, and explains the confirmation flow. This is exemplary transparency.

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?

Two dense sentences: the first states the purpose and endpoint; the second packs the destructive warning, confirmation workflow, and permission requirement. No wasted words, clearly 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?

For a simple delete operation with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, that it's irreversible, the prerequisite scope, and the required confirmation sequence. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about 'confirm' but this is largely redundant with the schema's description. The 'id' parameter is only hinted at by the phrase 'from the current flow' and not explicitly described, so no additional boost beyond baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a closing note from the current flow', with the HTTP endpoint also provided. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like cigchat_flow_create_closing_note, cigchat_flow_update_closing_note, and cigchat_get_closing_note.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement first' and the required 'Manage Flow' scope. This is a clear explanation of the two-step invocation pattern. However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative actions (e.g., update instead of delete), so it loses one point.

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