delete_workspace

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only repeats the word 'delete' with a parenthetical synonym. It does not state that the operation is permanent or irreversible, does not mention potential side effects on associated resources, and fails to clarify what happens on failure. The ownership condition is the only meaningful behavioral context provided.

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 sentence is extremely concise and appropriately front-loaded. Every word adds meaning, and it avoids redundant information. For a one-parameter tool with a simple operation, this is an appropriately minimal definition.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and a single undocumented parameter, the description has the responsibility to provide sufficient context for a safe and correct call. It does not mention the permanent and irreversible nature of the deletion, does not explain the return value or error behavior, and does describe the impact on projects/files associated with the workspace. This is incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 0%, so the description is the only place to clarify the parameter. It does relate 'workspace_id' to 'a workspace you own,' which covers the identity and ownership constraint, but it omits any other guidance about the value format, required permissions, or that the workspace must already exist.

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 uses the specific verb 'Delete' with the resource 'workspace' and adds the ownership condition 'you own,' which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like create_workspace, get_workspace, list_workspaces, and delete_file. The resource is explicit and the action is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of related tools like list_workspaces for finding the correct workspace_id, and no exclusions. The only implied usage is that the tool targets owned workspaces, but that is not enough to steer an agent toward or away from other tools.

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