delete_workflow_version

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses destructiveness ('permanently remove') and recovery until purge, adding behavioral context beyond the schema's confirm parameter. It could include more details like authorization or response format, but it's adequate.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence adds value without redundancy. It is efficient and easy to parse.

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 complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, constraints (protected versions), and recoverability. It misses potential return behavior or error cases, but it is largely 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters; it only reinforces the destructive nature of the confirm parameter indirectly.

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 action ('permanently remove one entry from a workflow's version history'), specifies the resource, and distinguishes from siblings like delete_workflow and restore_deleted_workflow_version by noting protected versions and recoverability.

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 explicitly states that working draft and published version are protected, and mentions the recoverability via restore_deleted_workflow_version, guiding the agent on when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly list alternative tools for deleting entire workflows or other entity versions.

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