Удалить сценарий

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

The annotations already mark this as destructive, but the description adds key behavioral detail beyond that: deletion removes the entire edit history, is irreversible, affects running bots, and does not unpublish from the marketplace. This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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?

Three short sentences deliver the core action, the irreversible consequence, the operational warning, and the alternative tool. No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 4-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the important consequences: history loss, irreversibility, effect on live bots, and marketplace publication behavior. The confirm_name safety mechanism is already documented in the schema, 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 parameters are already well documented. The description does not add extra parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the load.

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 and resource: deletes a flow along with its entire revision history. It also distinguishes the scope from siblings by noting irreversibility and that marketplace publication is not removed, which separates it from flows_save and market_unpublish.

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 gives clear behavioral guidance: deleting is permanent, deleting an active flow leaves the bot without a canvas, and if the flow is published, the publication remains and must be removed separately via market_unpublish. This explicitly points to the relevant alternative tool.

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