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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the operation is destructive and requires confirmation, which is critical. However, it does not explain what 'soft-delete' means in practice—whether it is reversible, how it affects running workflow runs, or what permissions are needed.

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 two sentences with zero filler. The destructive warning is front-loaded, and every word contributes to either purpose or safe usage.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the essential points: what it deletes, that it is destructive, and when to call it. The main gaps are the semantics of 'soft-delete' and the lack of any return-value guidance, which are relevant because there is no output schema.

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 input schema already documents id as 'Workflow UUID' with 100% coverage. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 opening phrase 'Soft-delete a workflow' names the exact verb and resource, and the 'soft-' qualifier adds important specificity beyond a generic delete. It is clearly distinct from sibling tools like workflows_pause, workflows_resume, and workflows_update.

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 explicitly states a precondition: 'confirm with the user before calling unless they explicitly asked to delete.' This gives the agent a clear when-not-to-invoke rule. It does not name alternatives such as workflows_pause for temporary stoppage, so it falls just short of full routing guidance.

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