delete_workspace

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing the cascade: members, configs, API keys, and resources are destroyed along with the workspace. Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the real added value is that scope detail. It stops short of stating required permissions, irreversibility guarantees, or what happens on a bad/nonexistent id.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the irreversible nature plus the blast radius are both front-loaded before an agent would commit.

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?

An output schema exists so return-shape explanation is unnecessary, and the destruction scope is covered. What's missing for a high-blast-radius mutation is the permission requirement and confirmation/error behavior for invalid ids.

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% and the single parameter carries its own description, so the schema does the work. "By id" adds nothing beyond it; baseline 3 applies for a fully documented single-param schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Delete a workspace by id") with an added scope clause naming what is removed. It is distinguishable from list/get/create/update_workspace siblings by the verb alone, but the description never explicitly contrasts with them.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the word "permanent" signals this is only for final teardown, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no suggestion to verify with get_workspace first, and no mention of the update_workspace alternative for reversible changes.

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