Delete workflow step

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds non-obvious behavioral consequences the annotations cannot express: transitions into and out of the step are left dangling and contacts will stall there unless the graph is reconnected. That is exactly the kind of context a mutating tool needs.

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?

Labelled sections (Purpose/Not for/Returns/Use when/Note) are front-loaded with the routing decision and end with the only cautionary detail. Every sentence carries distinct information; none restates the name or title.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, alternatives, return value ('Confirmation of the deletion') and the post-deletion consequence. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and to warn the user about dangling transitions.

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%, with both required parameters ('id' = Workflow UUID, 'stepId' = Step UUID) fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 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 first line states a specific verb+resource ('Remove one step from a workflow') and the 'Not for' line names the sibling it is not (plunk_delete_workflow, which deletes the whole workflow). An agent can distinguish it from plunk_delete_workflow, plunk_delete_workflow_transition and plunk_update_workflow_step without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit when-to-use ('Removing a step from the graph'), explicit when-not ('Deleting the whole workflow, which is plunk_delete_workflow'), and a remediation workflow (re-fetch and reconnect the graph). Nothing is left to inference.

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