delete_dag

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a DAG' implies a destructive operation but provides no details about consequences, permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, rate limits, or error conditions. This is inadequate for a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 maximally concise at three words, with zero wasted verbiage. It's front-loaded with the essential action and target, though this brevity comes at the cost of completeness. Every word earns its place by communicating the core function without fluff.

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 operation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens when a DAG is deleted, what dependencies might be affected, whether there are confirmation steps, or what the response looks like. The agent would be operating blindly with significant risk.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the single parameter 'dag_id' is completely undocumented in structured fields. The description adds no information about this parameter—no explanation of what a DAG ID is, format requirements, or where to find valid values. While the parameter count is low (1), the description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 'Delete a DAG' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it correctly identifies the verb ('Delete') and resource ('DAG'), it lacks specificity about what a DAG is or what deletion entails. It doesn't differentiate from sibling deletion tools like delete_dag_run or delete_connection, leaving the agent to guess based on naming conventions alone.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list (delete_dag_run, delete_connection, delete_variable, etc.), there's no indication of what distinguishes deleting a DAG from deleting other entities. The description offers no prerequisites, warnings, or context about appropriate use cases.

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