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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: permanence, deletion of all versions, and that endpoints/sub_workflow references will 'fail cleanly at run/serve time.' This goes beyond the annotation and informs the agent of side effects, without contradicting the destructive flag.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action ('Permanently delete a workflow and all its versions') and immediately follows with the critical consequence ('Cannot be undone'). Every phrase earns its place; it is appropriately concise.

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 simple one-parameter delete operation with an output schema, the description covers the primary effect, permanence, and behavior of dependent references. It does not mention authentication or ownership requirements, but those are not essential for invoking the tool correctly. The output schema covers return values, so this is sufficiently complete.

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 has 100% coverage for workflow_id with 'the workflow id to delete.' The description does not add additional meaning about the parameter (e.g., format, validation, or how it relates to versions). With full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 applies; the description adds no extra value here.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a workflow and all its versions.' It specifies the scope (all versions) and the irreversible nature, which distinguishes it from other delete tools (e.g., delete_schema) by focusing on workflows. The purpose is unambiguous and does not rely on the title alone.

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 implies usage (when you want to remove a workflow permanently) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_workflow or unpublish_workflow. It gives consequences for references but no explicit exclusions or alternative routing. This is implied guidance, not explicit.

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