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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description goes well beyond the annotation by enumerating exactly what is destroyed (runs, step reports, revisions) and what survives (batches, deliveries, tool calls). This is the difference between the destructive and non-destructive siblings made concrete.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the destructive verb and its consequences, then the confirmation rule, then the sibling alternative. No filler.

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, irreversible mutation with no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, retained entities, the confirmation requirement, and the escape hatch. Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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 projectId/workflowId/confirmName are already documented. The description restates the confirmName invariant ('must equal the workflow's exact name') rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so it earns the baseline.

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+resource ('Permanently delete a workflow') and immediately scopes the blast radius. It is clearly distinguishable from archive_workflow, cancel_workflow, and the other delete_* siblings by naming the retained vs destroyed entities.

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?

Gives the prerequisite for invocation (confirmName must equal the workflow's exact name) and points at archive_workflow as the non-destructive alternative. It does not spell out the explicit 'use this when...' condition, but the routing intent is unambiguous.

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