delete_flow

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the blast radius ('one' diagram) and the indexing source, which limits accidental damage, but says nothing about irreversibility, confirmation requirements, or what happens to the underlying reference after deletion.

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?

A single 17-word sentence that front-loads the action and adds exactly one useful clause about the index source. Nothing extraneous and nothing buried.

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, non-nested tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: the agent knows what gets deleted and how to source the index. The only real omission is an explicit note on irreversibility or permissions, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so the schema offers only types and integer bounds. The description compensates for one of the two parameters by explaining that 'index' is the position shown by list_flows, but leaves 'projectId' entirely uninterpreted beyond the implicit 'from a project'.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), an exact resource (one saved flow diagram), and its scope (from a project, identified by the index from list_flows). An agent can distinguish this from sibling deletions like delete_project or delete_requirement 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?

The phrase 'by the index shown by list_flows' establishes the prerequisite that an agent must call list_flows first to obtain a valid index, which is genuinely actionable context. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or a safety caveat about irreversibility, so it falls short of a 5.

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