conduyt_delete_call_flow_function

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

With no annotations, the description usefully discloses that this is an admin-only removal and that published-flow references block deletion. However, it does not state whether removal is irreversible, what happens to dependent references after successful deletion, or whether any confirmation step is required.

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?

Two tightly written sentences with zero waste. The core action and admin scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by the important refusal condition.

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 one-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the critical blocker and required remediation. The remaining gap is limited mostly to post-deletion irreversibility or side effects.

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?

There is only one parameter (id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it as a function UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond reinforcing the resource type.

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 uses a specific verb ("Remove") and precise resource ("call-flow function endpoint") and marks the admin scope. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like create, update, and test call-flow functions.

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?

It clearly states a key usage condition: deletion is refused while a PUBLISHED flow references the endpoint, and the caller must edit and republish that flow first. It lacks explicit routing to alternatives such as update or detach, but the exclusion condition is unusually clear.

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