workspace_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses that dirty workspaces are refused unless force is explicitly true, which is a real guardrail beyond the field names. It says nothing about whether deletion is permanent/irreversible, what permissions are needed, or what happens to in-flight agent/process sessions attached to the workspace.

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 tight sentences with the destructive action and its ID-based scope front-loaded, followed by the one behavioral caveat. No filler.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, the key safety gate, and the required identifier. Completeness would improve with a statement about permanence/reversibility or error behavior, but there is no output schema demanding return-value explanation.

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 50%: 'force' is documented in the schema, while 'workspaceId' is only constrained by a regex pattern. The description reinforces the force semantics ('unless force is explicitly true') and characterizes the ID as immutable, but adds no format or constraint detail beyond the 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Remove a managed Git worktree') and scopes it by 'immutable workspace ID', which cleanly separates it from siblings like workspace_create and workspace_list. An agent can select it without opening the schema.

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 by the verb 'Remove' and the workspace-ID scoping, and the dirty-workspace condition hints at when the call will fail. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g. workspace_create's inverse, or cleanup workflows), nor any stated prerequisites or irreversibility warning.

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