Delete a custom workflow in Zadig with a safe dry-run default and required confirmation. Specify the workflow name and optional project key to remove it.
Delete a custom workflow. Defaults to dry_run=true and requires confirm=true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| project_key | No | ||
| workflow_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully discloses that dry_run defaults to true and confirm must be true, which are safety-relevant behaviors for a destructive operation. It could also clarify the exact effect of dry_run and what happens upon actual deletion, but the provided defaults are material and well-placed.
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 short sentences, no filler, and the most important safety informaton is front-loaded. Every word earns its place.
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 delete operation with no annotations and a partially documented parameter set, the description covers the critical safety flags but leaves some ambiguity around the exact invocation to perform an actual deletion (e.g., whether dry_run must be false). An output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed here, but project_key semantics and the precise confirm/dry_run relationship could be clearer.
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 must compensate. It adds meaning to confirm ('requires confirm=true') and dry_run ('defaults to true'), but it doesn't explain project_key or restate what workflow_name refers to. workflow_name is inferable from tool name, but project_key remains undocumented in both schema and description.
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 (delete) and the resource (custom workflow), and the tool name reinforces this. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with sibling workflow tools like update or create, but the delete action and target are 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?
The description implies usage: call this tool when a custom workflow must be deleted. It adds important safety guidance with the dry_run default and confirm requirement, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or suggest alternatives. This is borderline between implied and explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.