deleteWorkflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, but the description adds concrete behavioral context beyond them: the published version stops running, the action is irreversible, and user confirmation is required. It doesn't cover auth needs or rate limits, but for a single-resource delete this is strong added value.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the consequence, the irreversibility/confirmation warning, and the alternative. The consequence and alternative are front-loaded with zero waste.

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 one-parameter delete with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: the effect on the published version, irreversibility, confirmation requirement, and the non-destructive alternative.

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% and the single `workflow_id` parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax, format, or meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a workflow') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling `deactivateWorkflow` by explaining that the latter stops a workflow without deleting it. An agent can route correctly 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Delete a workflow'), a when-not alternative ('To stop it without deleting, use `deactivateWorkflow`'), and a required precondition ('confirm with the user first'). Nothing is left to inference.

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