Delete a workflow definition by key. Existing cases, runs, and events are preserved, so you can remove unused definitions without losing historical data.
Delete a workflow definition. Existing cases/runs/events are retained.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable context: that existing cases/runs/events are retained. This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the side-effect profile, which is crucial for a destructive operation.
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, zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the retention note is a single clarifying clause. No redundant information.
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 single-parameter delete operation with annotations already declaring destructive behavior, the description is adequate. It explains the core action and the most important side effect. It does not cover error cases (e.g., key not found) or prerequisites, but these are minor for such a straightforward tool.
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 does not explain what the 'key' parameter refers to beyond its name and type. The agent must infer that 'key' identifies the workflow, which is not explicitly stated. The description adds no semantic value over 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('workflow definition'), and the retention note distinguishes it from other workflow tools. It clearly identifies the operation's scope and differentiates from sibling tools like invariance_workflow_update or invariance_workflow_get.
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 (when you need to remove a workflow definition) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The retention clause is behavioral context rather than usage guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.