delete_flow

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

Annotations already mark the tool destructive and non-read-only; the description adds value by disclosing the cascade to operations and the confirmation requirement. It accurately matches the destructiveHint and does not contradict any annotation.

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?

One short sentence front-loads the action and packs the essential nuances (cascade and confirmation) into a parenthetical. No wasted words; the description is easy to scan.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with high schema coverage and destructiveHint set, the description conveys the fundamental behavior: deletion target, cascade scope, and confirmation. Minor omission: the effect of confirm=false/omitted isn't stated, which could matter to an agent deciding whether to request confirmation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents id and confirm. The description reinforces that confirmation is expected and adds the cascade-to-operations context, but it doesn't clarify what happens when confirm is false or absent.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete), a clear resource (a flow), and a defining scope nuance (and all its operations). The cascade detail differentiates it from sibling flow tools like update_flow or trigger_flow, and from other delete tools.

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 makes the core use case obvious ('Delete a flow') and flags confirmation, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over update_flow, trigger_flow, or delete_collection. Usage context is implied by the action rather than spelled out.

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