dataflow_delete

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

The description simply restates the delete action and adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already declare. It does not disclose that deletion is likely permanent, that it cannot be undone, or that it may impact dependent artifacts. The annotations carry the destructiveHint, but the description itself contributes no additional transparency.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler or redundant information. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 simple two-parameter delete operation, the description together with the destructiveHint annotation and fully covered schema is mostly complete. The main missing context is whether the deletion is permanent or whether there are prerequisites like ensuring the dataflow is not in use, but these are relatively minor gaps for 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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters, each with a basic description ('The dataflow ID', 'The workspace ID'), so the schema is doing the heavy lifting. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how the IDs are used, their format, or any constraints beyond what the schema already provides.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('Dataflow Gen2 item'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like dataflow_list, dataflow_get, dataflow_create, and dataflow_update. The name and description align, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 description implies the tool should be used when a Dataflow Gen2 item needs to be deleted, so an agent can infer the basic use case. However, it offers no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no prerequisites, and no mention of the destructive nature or confirmation steps before invoking.

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