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

Annotations already mark the operation as destructive, but the description adds valuable specifics: the deletion is irreversible and cascades through workflow nodes, edges, lead-list source providers, lead progress entries, per-lead contexts, and webhook tokens. This goes well beyond the annotation and accurately discloses the full destructive footprint.

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 three sentences with no filler. The irreversible action and cascade scope are front-loaded, followed immediately by actionable lookup guidance and the safe alternative. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, this description is complete: it states the action, the irreversible consequences, the full cascade of affected data, how to obtain the required ID, and the non-destructive alternative. An agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly and avoid harmful mistakes.

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 only defines workflowId as a required string with no description, so schema description coverage is 0%. The description compensates by telling the agent to use campaignstack_list_workflows to find workflow IDs, clarifying where the parameter value comes from. It does not elaborate further on the parameter's meaning, but the parameter name and this guidance are sufficient for such a simple tool.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a workflow and all associated data.' It immediately distinguishes this from non-destructive workflow operations and clearly defines the scope of the deletion, making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 tells the agent how to find the required workflow ID using campaignstack_list_workflows, and explicitly names the alternative when deletion is not intended: campaignstack_update_workflow_status. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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