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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (runs, step reports, revisions) and, crucially, what survives (Batches, Deliveries, tool calls). It also discloses the confirmName safety guard, which is precisely the kind of consequence detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and scope, then retention, then the safety requirement, then the alternative. No filler; every clause carries actionable information.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the needed context: cascade effects, retained entities, the confirmation requirement, and the archiving alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructively and safely 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics: confirmName must equal the workflow's exact name, clarifying the confirmation guard beyond the schema's terse 'to confirm deletion'. projectId/workflowId semantics are left to the schema, which is acceptable given full 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a workflow') and immediately scopes the cascade ('together with all of its runs, step reports, and revisions'). It also names the contrasting sibling behavior ('archive with kind workflow hides a workflow and keeps its history'), so an agent can distinguish destructive from non-destructive removal without opening schemas.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative path (archive with kind workflow) and its key property (keeps history), giving a clear steer between permanent deletion and archiving. It stops short of an explicit 'use this when… / don't use this when…' framing, so the selection condition is strong but slightly inferred.

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