Runn: delete workstream

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly says 'Hard delete', indicating irreversibility, and includes the HTTP DELETE method. It also notes the account-wide scope. This provides solid behavioral transparency, though it omits potential permission requirements or error cases.

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 extremely concise, delivering the essential information in one short sentence. No unnecessary words or repetition. It front-loads the action and key attributes.

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?

For a simple delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides key information: HTTP method, hard-delete behavior, and account-wide scope. It lacks a few details like required permissions or response format, but the tool's simplicity makes this sufficient.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. The URL pattern `DELETE /workstreams/{workstreamId}` clearly identifies `workstreamId` as the identifier used in the path. For a single integer parameter, this is sufficient to understand its meaning, though not explicitly phrased as 'the ID of the workstream to delete'.

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 deletes a workstream, with the HTTP method and resource path. It distinguishes from siblings like runn_create_workstream and runn_update_workstream by indicating a delete operation. The phrase 'account-wide' clarifies scope relative to tools like runn_remove_project_workstream.

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 when to use this tool: when a workstream should be permanently deleted across the entire account. It differentiates from `runn_remove_project_workstream` via 'account-wide', but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to select it over create/update/list.

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