prufa_delete_flow

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses idempotency and a specific error case (409 flow_in_use), but does not mention other behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or response format. The description adds some value beyond the schema.

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, consisting of two short sentences with a crucial note. It is front-loaded and every word serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core action, an error condition, and idempotency. For a simple delete tool with 2 parameters, this is fairly complete but could optionally mention the response format.

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 50% (flow_id lacks description, idempotency_key is described). The description says 'by id' for flow_id, which is redundant and adds no new meaning. For idempotency_key, the schema already explains it. The description does not compensate for the missing schema description.

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 'Delete a flow by id' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prufa_create_flow, prufa_edit_flow, and prufa_get_flow by being the delete operation.

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 the prerequisite condition (flow used by a monitor returns 409) and the remedy (pause or delete that monitor first). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like prufa_pause_monitor or prufa_delete_monitor, though it implies their use.

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