cigchat_flow_delete_shortcut

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

With no annotations, the description properly discloses destructive and irreversible behavior, the confirmation requirement, and auth scopes. This goes beyond the bare schema and gives the agent essential safety context, though it does not describe error cases or return values.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the destructive warning, usage pattern, and auth requirement. No filler or redundancy—every sentence adds value.

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 two-parameter delete tool without an output schema, the description covers all essential operational aspects: purpose, destructive nature, required confirmation, and token scope. It is complete enough for an agent to use safely, though it could mention response expectations or error handling for extra polish.

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 schema already covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds workflow context around `confirm` ('Call once without `confirm`...') and explains the impact statement process, enhancing the parameter semantics beyond the schema descriptions.

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 a shortcut from the current flow' with a specific verb and resource, and the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from siblings like create/update shortcut by specifying the delete action and scope.

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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: the two-step confirm workflow ('Call once without `confirm` to get an impact statement first') and the required 'Manage Flow' scope. It lacks explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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