delete_flow

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the cascade scope (all music deleted), the reversibility (one undo step; undo restores it), the auto-answered confirmation dialog, and a hard precondition on the last flow. These are exactly the non-obvious behaviors an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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, each carrying distinct information, with the highest-stakes facts (cascade delete, undo) front-loaded. Nothing is repeated from the schema or restated from the name.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the risky semantics are fully covered. The only omission is what the tool returns on success or failure (an error vs. a confirmation), which is not stated anywhere given there is no output schema.

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 0% and the single parameter flow_id has no description in the schema, so the description is the only place meaning could be added — and it says nothing about flow_id or how to obtain a valid value. The name is self-explanatory, so the gap is minor but real.

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 gives a specific verb and resource (delete a flow) and states the blast radius ("and all its music"), which separates it from finer-grained siblings like delete_events or delete_range without naming them. It is not a tautology and leaves no ambiguity about what is removed.

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?

It provides a clear 'when not' condition ("The last flow cannot be deleted") and notes that undo restores the flow, which helps the agent decide whether it can recover. However, it never routes the agent to an alternative such as delete_events for deleting part of a flow, so the guidance on choosing between siblings is only implied.

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