delete_flow

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description discloses irreversibility, the need for a confirm flag, the default-disabled state, and reliance on an unofficial Microsoft endpoint whose behavior may change. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and risks.

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 concise sentences deliver purpose, safety requirements, and reliability caveats with no filler. The structure is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.

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 the destructive nature, the description covers critical context: irreversibility, confirm requirement, disabled-by-default, and unofficial endpoint. It omits explicit return-value or error details, but for a simple delete tool this is not a major gap, especially with the destructiveHint annotation present.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with meaningful information. The description restates parameter names and requiredness but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with 'Permanently delete a flow' and explicitly shows the HTTP DELETE endpoint, giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from non-destructive operations like disable_flow by emphasizing 'permanently'.

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 provides clear context for when to use: for permanent deletion, with a confirm guard to prevent accidents, and notes the tool is disabled by default, requiring ENABLE_WRITE_OPS=true. However, it does not explicitly name an alternative like disable_flow for temporary deactivation, so it falls short of a 5.

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