delete_automation_algorithm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose that deletion is irreversible, whether it requires confirmation or elevated permissions, what happens to automations referencing the algorithm, or the error behavior if the name 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?

One short sentence with zero padding, and the destructive verb is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight editing of rich content.

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 destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits irreversibility, permission requirements, side effects on dependent automations, and failure modes that an agent needs before invoking a delete.

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 description coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter ('The automation algorithm name'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, naming-convention, or lookup detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('automation algorithm'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, differentiate itself from sibling CRUD tools such as create_automation_algorithm, update_automation_algorithm, or get_automation_algorithm beyond the verb.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. algorithm must exist), and no routing to alternatives. The single sentence offers no context for choosing this tool over the other automation-algorithm siblings.

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