Delete a cloud flow

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 and does so: it states the action is irreversible, mutates a live environment, breaks agent tools that referenced the flow, is blocked for managed flows, and requires confirm: true (otherwise a dry run). Permission/constraint and side-effect surface are all disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action, then preconditions, then the confirm gate. Every clause carries a distinct operational fact (irreversibility, dependency breakage, turn-off requirement, managed-flow exception) with no 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 destructive 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers the failure modes an agent needs before calling: irreversibility, live-environment impact, dependency consequences, managed-flow exclusion, and the confirm dry-run behavior.

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%, so the schema already explains flowId, confirm (dry run), and the credential/environment overrides. The description reinforces the confirm: true requirement but adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Specific verb+resource with scope ('Remove a cloud flow from the environment for good'), and it explicitly separates itself from near-siblings by naming cs_get_flow (read-first) and cs_set_flow_state (must be off before deletion). An agent can distinguish this from cs_update_flow, cs_set_flow_state, and cs_delete_solution 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?

Gives explicit preconditions and a fail-out path: read with cs_get_flow first, ensure the flow is turned off via cs_set_flow_state, and for managed flows uninstall the originating solution instead. That is genuine when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance tied to named alternatives, not inference.

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