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

The destructiveHint annotation already tells the agent this is destructive, but the description adds no further behavioral context such as whether connections or related links are also removed, whether confirmation is required, or what permissions are needed. It does not contradict the annotation, but it contributes little beyond it.

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 with no filler, so it is highly concise. Its brevity is appropriate structurally, though it leaves important operational details to the schema and annotations.

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 output schema and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description is too sparse: it does not clarify effects, side effects, required identifiers, or safety expectations. The agent knows what the tool is called but not enough about the consequences of invoking it.

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 both id and linkId are documented in the schema itself, making 3 the baseline. The description's phrase 'by its ID' only reinforces the id parameter and adds no meaning beyond the schema for linkId.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete a workflow step'), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings such as workflow_steps_get, workflow_steps_update, and workflow_steps_list. It does not explain the role of linkId or whether both identifiers are needed, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to delete a step versus alternatives like workflow_steps_disconnect or workflow_steps_update, and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversibility. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the word 'Delete'.

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