delete_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a workflow, implying a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify permissions needed, whether deletion is permanent, error handling, or rate limits. The return value is vaguely described as 'Status of the operation' without detailing success/failure indicators.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The Args and Returns sections are structured but could be more integrated. No redundant information is present, though the return description is vague.

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 destructive nature, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as confirmation prompts, side effects (e.g., related data deletion), error scenarios, or output structure details. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps for safe agent use.

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 that the 'name' parameter refers to 'The name of the workflow to delete', providing basic semantics beyond the schema's title 'Name'. However, it doesn't clarify format constraints (e.g., case-sensitivity, allowed characters) or examples, leaving gaps in parameter understanding.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow script'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'update_workflow' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other destructive operations beyond naming.

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. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., workflow must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible deletion), or when to choose deletion over other operations like updating. It relies solely on the tool name for context.

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