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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses recoverability via the recycle bin (a manager can restore it), the governed-operation gate that can deny execution, and the write-access prerequisite. Those are exactly the behavioral facts an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then recoverability, then the governance/access gate. No filler and no repetition of the schema.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: what is destroyed (table plus rows), reversibility, the governance gate, and permission requirements. Nothing an agent needs before invoking 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 description coverage is 100% and the single tableId parameter is documented in the schema as "The workspace table (list) id to delete." The description reinforces the list/table terminology but adds no format or acquisition guidance, so the 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 table (a \"list\") and its rows" — with the destructive scope made explicit (rows included). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like delete_task, delete_document, delete_project, and from the non-destructive create/update workspace-table tools.

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 strong contextual guidance: this is a governed operation requiring an org admin to enable it in Settings > Agents > Agent Policies, otherwise it is denied, and the caller also needs write access to the list. It does not name a preferred alternative (e.g., an archive/soft-delete or recycle-bin listing tool such as list_recycle_bin), so exclusions remain implicit.

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