bulk_delete_workflows

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

With no annotations available, the description discloses important behaviors: soft-deletion (non-permanent), recoverability, optimistic locking, and the need for confirmation. It also mentions the return format. It could be more explicit about side effects, but the key traits are covered without contradiction.

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 concise with three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the main action, providing a prerequisite, and describing the return format. No redundant information, and the key points are front-loaded.

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 the tool has 2 required params with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately covers core behavior, prerequisites, and partial failure. It could mention handling of stale versions or error codes, but the provided context is sufficient for agent decision-making.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining why expectedVersion is needed (optimistic locking) and that each workflow must be read first. This contextualizes the parameters effectively.

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 soft-deletes multiple workflows at once, distinguishing it from the single delete_workflow sibling by mentioning recoverability via restore_workflow. The verb 'soft-delete' is specific and the resource 'workflows' is explicit.

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 provides key usage guidance: each workflow requires its own current version for optimistic locking, suggesting the agent should read each workflow first. It also notes that a partial failure is possible. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or list alternatives beyond the sibling delete_workflow.

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