Delete a Homey flow

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

The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining the no-undo consequence and that the exact flow is returned in the result for reconstruction. It also clarifies the confirm requirement for externally created flows. This gives the agent clear expectations about side effects and return behavior, well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action and scope, followed by critical behavioral notes. Every sentence adds value: the first defines the primary action and scope, the second warns about no undo and the confirm condition. No filler or redundancy.

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?

The description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the target scope (flows), the destructive consequence (no undo), the return vale for recovery, and the special condition for externally created flows. This is sufficient for an agent to use the tool safely and effectively without needing additional documentation.

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 specifies both parameters (flow string, confirm boolean). The description adds meaning by stating the flow can be 'standard or advanced', which clarifies the scope of the flow parameter. It also ties the confirm parameter to a specific condition, although that is already in the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the added clarification raises it to 4.

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 ('deletes') and explicitly states the scope ('flow, standard or advanced'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It even hints at the result (returns the flow) which further clarifies intent. This distinguishes it from other homey tools that start, update, or validate flows.

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 a clear usage condition: 'A flow this server did not create needs confirm: true.' This guides the agent on when to set the confirm parameter. It also implies the destructive nature (no undo) which is essential. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative deletion tools (e.g., homey_script_delete) or mention when not to use it, so it is not perfect.

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