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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description earns credit for going beyond it by disclosing the cascade to all versions and the downstream consequence that endpoints and sub_workflow references fail at run/serve time. It stops short of stating auth/permission requirements or the non-idempotent behavior the annotations declare.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The irreversible nature is front-loaded immediately after the action statement, and the downstream-impact detail follows it in dependency order.

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?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be explained, and the description covers irreversibility and runtime consequences well. The one notable omission for a destructive lifecycle tool is whether the workflow must be unpublished first or what the caller should do about existing endpoint references beforehand.

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?

Only one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents workflow_id. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance (e.g. where to obtain the id via list_workflows), leaving this at 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?

A specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a workflow') plus the important scope detail that all versions go with it. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from adjacent lifecycle operations like publish_workflow or the version-level siblings, but the resource and blast radius are unambiguous.

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 'Cannot be undone' clause signals caution and implies a last-resort action, but the description never states when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. leaving a workflow unpublished or deleting only a version) or what prerequisites must hold. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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