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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It fully discloses the irreversible, destructive nature ('no undo and no trash/recycle bin'), the authorization requirement (owner_key only; sub-key gets 403), and the consequence of deleting before refund ('once the workspace is gone, so is any way to claim what was left'). This is exemplary transparency for a destructive operation.

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 dense but well-organized: it leads with the most critical fact (irreversibility), then the authorization requirement, then the refund ordering, and finally the usage context. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff. It is longer than typical but appropriately so given the destructive nature and the need to convey safety and sequencing.

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 destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers all essential context: what is destroyed, who can call it, the prerequisite refund flow, and when to use it. An agent has enough information to decide whether and how to invoke it correctly. Nothing critical 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?

The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both api_key and workspace_id (100% coverage). The description does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema states; it focuses on usage and behavior. Since the schema fully documents the parameters, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate—the description adds no extra semantic value for parameters.

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 precise statement of the operation: 'Permanently and irreversibly delete a workspace' and enumerates exactly what is destroyed (sub-keys, files, activity log, webhooks). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like aanet_delete_webhook and conveys the scope of destruction, making it unambiguous what this tool does and what it does not.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this when a task is finished or permanently abandoned, not as a way to "reset" a workspace you plan to keep using.' It also provides a prerequisite sequence: call aanet_request_refund first if balance remains and wait for aanet_get_refund_status to show 'paid' before deleting. This is direct guidance with a clear exclusion, far above a baseline.

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