delete_workflow

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond the obvious deletion. It does not disclose whether the action is destructive, whether it requires authorization, or what side effects occur (e.g., cascading deletion of associated runs). With no annotations to supplement, this is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 a single, efficient sentence that conveys the core action. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary words, though it could be expanded slightly without losing conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal. However, it lacks critical context about what 'delete' entails—such as whether it is reversible or affects other entities. For a complete tool, this is insufficient.

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% (the single parameter 'id' is described as 'Workflow ID'). Per the rubric, baseline is 3 when coverage is high, and the description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Delete a workflow' clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (workflow). It is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling delete tools like delete_task or delete_tree, lacking cues for distinguishing usage.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_workflow_run, advance_workflow_run). There is no mention of prerequisites, contexts, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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