Remove Automation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing that removal is irreversible and stops all future runs. It also outlines necessary pre-checks. It could further specify any side effects (e.g., impact on logs or active runs), but the critical behavioral traits are covered.

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 concise and front-loaded with the action. The safety instructions are necessary and each sentence adds value, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, the input format, and the critical safety protocol, leaving no major gaps for an agent to misuse it.

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 schema already fully describes the single parameter with 100% coverage, including the format and example URL. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so a 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 action ('Remove an automation') and specifies the resource and input format ('by ID or Resend dashboard URL'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like create-automation or get-automation by focusing on deletion, and it emphasizes irreversibility.

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 provides explicit context on when to use the tool by mandating user confirmation, referencing the automation name, and warning about irreversibility. It could be improved by explicitly naming alternatives (e.g., update-automation for modifications), but the prerequisites are very clear.

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