processInstance_delete

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds valuable context that reasons are recorded in history and that confirmation is returned. However, it fails to clarify if the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what permissions are required for this 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 three-sentence structure is appropriately concise and front-loaded. However, the content inaccuracy regarding parameters undermines the structural efficiency.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and an empty schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks safety warnings about irreversibility and the parameter/schema mismatch represents a critical documentation gap that would prevent correct invocation.

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?

Critical mismatch: the description references 'by ID' and an 'optional deletion reason' parameter, but the input schema is completely empty (zero properties). This creates false expectations about required arguments and will mislead agents attempting to invoke the tool.

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 tool deletes/cancels an active process instance and distinguishes from sibling 'get', 'list', and 'start' operations via the specific verb. However, it mentions 'by ID' which implies a parameter requirement not reflected in the schema, creating slight confusion.

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 versus alternatives like processInstance_setSuspension or processDefinition_deleteById. The mention of 'active' instances provides minimal context but no explicit when/when-not rules.

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