delete_workflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says the workflow is deleted and does not mention irreversibility, cascading effects on runs, permissions, or whether deletion can be undone. This is thin 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?

The description is a single concise sentence with no filler and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is so terse that it crosses into under-specification, preventing a higher score.

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?

Despite low complexity and a single parameter, the description omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral consequences. The output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but the deletion semantics and distinction from delete_workflow_runs are not addressed.

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% and the description does not explain source_path at all. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about what source_path should reference or how it should be formatted.

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 action ('Supprime un workflow' = 'Deletes a workflow') with a clear verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool delete_workflow_runs, but 'workflow' reads as the workflow definition versus runs, so it is mostly clear.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives such as delete_workflow_runs, undo_workflow_run, or trash_note. The description provides no contextual or exclusionary information.

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