delete_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the soft-delete behavior, recoverability, visibility (not listed until restored), and possible error scenarios. Does not cover permissions or side effects on related entities (e.g., runs), but is sufficient for a delete tool.

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?

Concise paragraph with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the core action, then logical progression of details. Every sentence adds meaningful information.

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 no output schema, the description covers error handling and recovery. Missing details on success response format, but the essential behavioral context is present. References to restore_workflow and version handling make it reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with good descriptions. Description adds value by explaining why expectedVersion is needed (version check) and that confirm must be true (acknowledgement). The advice to read the version first enhances parameter usage.

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 it deletes a workflow, specifies it's a soft-delete (recoverable), and distinguishes from other delete operations by mentioning recoverability. It also references the sibling restore_workflow, clarifying the lifecycle.

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 advises to read the workflow first for its version before deleting. Explains how to handle 409 errors (stale version vs. reference conflict) and that the workflow will not appear in list_workflows until restored. Could be more explicit about when not to use or alternative delete tools, but provides solid guidance.

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