cigchat_flow_delete_sub_flow

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

With no annotations to rely on, the description carries full responsibility. It clearly marks 'DESTRUCTIVE: irreversible', explains the confirmation token mechanism, and specifies the required OAuth scope. This thoroughly discloses the tool's safety profile and behavioral requirements.

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?

Three short sentences efficiently convey the purpose, destructive nature, usage workflow, and auth requirement. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant phrasing—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 simple 2-parameter destructive operation with no output schema, the description fully covers the action, danger, confirmation workflow, and required scope. The schema handles parameter semantics comprehensively, so nothing essential is missing.

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 descriptions are already very detailed (100% coverage), fully explaining the `confirm` token purpose and the `sub_flow_ns` naming flexibility. The description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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 starts with 'Delete sub flow', a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the action. The HTTP path '[DELETE /flow/delete-sub-flow]' further reinforces the purpose, and it is distinct from sibling tools like list_subflows or send_subflow.

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 an explicit two-step usage workflow: call without `confirm` to receive an impact statement, then pass the token after human approval. It also mentions the required 'Manage Flow' scope. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative deletion methods, so it falls short of a 5.

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