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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces the destructive nature by saying 'permanentemente' and requiring the workflow to be already archived. It also discloses the confirmation-by-name safeguard, which adds behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not mention side effects such as revision mismatches, but the annotation-driven danger warning is sufficient to warrant a 4.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that names the action, the object, and the key prerequisite with no filler. Every phrase contributes meaning, making it an efficient definition.

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?

Although the output schema and annotations cover the return value and destructive safety, the description omits essential invocation context for a destructive operation: what expectedRevision does, why confirmationName is required, and what the optional preview mode means. For a tool with five parameters and zero schema-level descriptions, this is not enough for an agent to call it correctly with confidence.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the five parameters, but it only illuminates confirmationName via 'confirmado pelo nome'. It leaves workflowId, expectedRevision, mode, and confirmation_id semantically unexplained, especially the role of expectedRevision as a guard, so the agent cannot fully infer correct parameter usage.

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 and resource ('Exclui permanentemente um workflow') and adds two important restrictions: the workflow must already be archived and confirmed by name. This clearly separates it from sibling tools like workflows_archive and workflows_restore, so an agent can identify the correct operation.

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 phrase 'já arquivado e confirmado pelo nome' implies this tool is for permanently deleting archived workflows, which is a concrete usage condition. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer the full selection logic from sibling names.

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