delete_monitor_builds

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action permanently removes build history, which is critical. It also explains the effect (removes execution records, frees space). Missing details like required permissions or potential cascading effects, but the core behavioral trait (permanence) is well communicated.

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 each serve a distinct purpose: stating the action, explaining the benefit, and adding a caution. No redundant or extraneous words.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the main aspects: what it does, why, and a warning. It could mention error conditions or prerequisites (e.g., flow must exist), but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's impact.

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% and the single parameter 'flow_id' is already described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating 'for a specific flow'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'build history for a specific flow', making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_monitor_sessions and delete_monitor_messages by specifying the target is build history.

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 explains when to use (to clean up old data and free storage) and provides a caution about permanence and debugging usefulness. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for similar operations (e.g., retrieving builds) or state conditions that make it unsuitable.

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