deleteProcessInstance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It fails to mention that deletion is irreversible, whether it cascades to subprocesses or tasks, required permissions, or the return value (e.g., void or confirmation). This is a critical gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 4 words). While brevity can be positive, here it sacrifices essential details. The structure is front-loaded but incomplete. Every word is necessary if it were sufficient, but it is not, so conciseness alone does not earn a higher score.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (delete operation with 5 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It does not explain what happens upon deletion, return semantics, or side effects. An agent would need additional information to safely invoke this tool.

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 coverage is 100% (all 5 parameters are described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3, and since there is no extra value, the score remains 3.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'process instance', making the action unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools beyond the name, but the name itself is distinctive enough (e.g., 'deleteProcessInstance' vs 'activateProcessInstance'). A slightly more specific phrasing like 'permanently delete' would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'suspendProcessInstance' or 'completeTask'. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to delete a process instance. The description lacks contextual decision-making support.

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