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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: deletion is irreversible through MCP, the workspace vanishes from the user's list, the default workspace is protected, and scheduled posts survive the deletion. These are exactly the side effects an agent needs before calling a destructive tool.

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 dense sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: irreversibility/confirmation, default-workspace protection, and scheduled-post behavior. The destructive nature is front-loaded in sentence one with zero 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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: the risk profile, the confirmation requirement, the blocking precondition, and the uncascaded side effect. Nothing material is left to inference.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents workspace_uid. The parenthetical "uid from list_workspaces" duplicates the schema description rather than adding new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ("Delete a workspace") and immediately identifies the identifier source (uid from list_workspaces). An agent can distinguish this from create_workspace or set_default_workspace without opening the schema.

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 clear preconditions and ordering constraints: confirm with the user first, switch the default workspace before deleting, and cancel scheduled posts if they shouldn't publish. It does not name the sibling tools (set_default_workspace, cancel_post) explicitly, so the agent must map actions to tools, but the conditions themselves are unambiguous.

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