Удалить сценарий

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

Despite annotations already indicating destructiveHint=true, the description adds significant context: it deletes the entire revision history, is irreversible ('Восстановить нельзя'), and describes the consequence of deleting a working scenario (bot remains without a canvas). This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide, making the destructive nature crystal clear.

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 three short sentences, each carrying necessary information: what is deleted, irreversibility, and impact on the bot. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or filler content.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the description explains the scope, irreversibility, and operational consequence. It does not explain the confirm_name parameter's purpose in text, but the schema already does that. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior and risk, though it could mention confirming the exact name as a safety step.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, including the safety confirmation parameter (confirm_name). The description adds no extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema is already complete. 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 uses a specific verb ('Удаляет' / deletes) and names the exact resource ('сценарий' / scenario), clearly distinguishing it from sibling flows_* tools like flows_save or flows_restore. It also states the deletion includes the entire revision history, which makes the scope explicit.

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 implies this tool is for permanent deletion of a scenario, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives (e.g., flows_restore for version recovery). The warning about bot impact implies caution, but there is no 'use this only when...' or comparison to other flows tools.

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