ds_delete_process_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that the operation is a deletion, implying destruction, but does not mention irreversibility, permissions, impact on logs, or whether the instance must be in a specific state. It adds minimal behavior context beyond the action itself.

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 a single, grammatically complete sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action. It packs the core purpose into nine words without 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 delete operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain what happens after deletion, whether deletion is reversible, or any caveats. While the parameter list is simple, the description's brevity leaves important behavioral details to inference.

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 has two parameters (project_name, process_instance_id) with no descriptions. The tool description does not mention either parameter, adding no semantic meaning. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to compensate by explaining what the parameters represent or how to obtain a process instance ID.

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 the tool deletes a historical process instance. The verb 'delete' and resource 'process instance' are specific, and 'historical' distinguishes it from process instance control tools like stop/pause/resume. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives, so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as stopping, pausing, or rerunning a process instance. The usage is only implied by the delete action and the 'historical' qualifier, which suggests it targets completed instances rather than active ones.

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