Rowan MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait that workflow data is deleted while the record is preserved, which is crucial. However, it doesn't mention permissions needed, whether the deletion is reversible, what 'workflow data' specifically includes, or any rate limits/constraints.

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 appropriately sized with three sentences: purpose statement, parameter documentation, and return value note. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args and Returns sections are somewhat redundant with the schema but still organized efficiently.

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?

Given one parameter with full schema coverage and an output schema (implied by 'Returns' statement), the description provides adequate context. It clearly explains the tool's purpose and key behavioral constraint. For a destructive operation, it could benefit from more safety/disclosure information since annotations are absent.

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%, with the parameter fully documented in the schema. The description's Args section repeats the schema information exactly, adding no additional semantic value beyond what's already in the structured schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Delete workflow data while keeping the workflow record.' This specifies the verb (delete), resource (workflow data), and an important constraint (keeps workflow record). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling 'workflow_delete' which presumably deletes the entire workflow including its record.

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 context through the phrase 'keeps workflow record,' suggesting this is for partial cleanup rather than full deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'workflow_delete' or other workflow management tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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