Удалить сценарий

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-idempotent, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: deletion removes all edit history, is irreversible, does not auto-enable another active flow, deletes the market publication, and preserves installed copies. These side effects and cascading consequences are exactly what an agent needs before invoking a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences with zero wasted words. The most critical facts (irreversibility, active-flow behavior) are front-loaded, and each sentence adds a distinct operational detail.

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 deletion tool with no output schema needed, the description covers the essential behavioral impacts: what is destroyed (history, market publication), what is irreversible, and what survives (installed copies). Annotations and schema handle the remaining structured details, so nothing critical is missing.

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 four parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description does not add any further meaning about parameter syntax, format, or interaction, so the baseline of 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 names a specific verb ('Удаляет') and resource ('сценарий'), and scopes the action ('вместе со всей историей редакций'). The statement 'Восстановить нельзя' implicitly distinguishes it from sibling restore tools like flows_restore.

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 usage by describing what deletion does and its consequences, but it does not explicitly say when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., flows_restore) or state prerequisites such as required permissions. Guidance is implied 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.