unfour.flow.delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the mutation/safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: run history is preserved across the delete, and guarded workspaces demand a revision-bound confirmation. It stops short of stating auth requirements or whether concurrent runs are affected.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its scope, then the confirmation prerequisite. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, and the destructive annotation is supplemented by the retention and confirmation notes. Still, for a 5-parameter mutation with zero schema description coverage, the description omits enough parameter-level detail to leave an agent guessing at invocation.

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?

Five parameters at 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden. It gestures at the confirmation concept but never maps it to the actual fields (confirm, confirmationText, confirmation_text) or explains flowId/workspaceId formats, leaving duplicate confirmation parameters unexplained.

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) and resource (a saved Flow definition), and adds a meaningful scope qualifier — run history is retained. This cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like unfour.flow.save, unfour.flow.get, and unfour.flow.run.

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 noting that guarded workspaces require confirmation bound to the current revision, which is a useful precondition. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs when-not guidance and does not mention what happens to running flows or how to recover from a mistaken deletion.

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