Delete Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses irreversible deletion on non-versioned stores and that exports/runs are not affected. It does not discuss failure cases (e.g., workflow not found) or dependencies, but for a one-parameter delete tool these are the key behavioral traits an agent needs to weigh before calling.

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 with zero filler. The first states the action and scope; the second covers interation, exclusion, and a caveat. Everything earns its place and the critical 'draft' scoping is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, no-output-schema delete tool, the description covers the action, persistence characteristics, and what it does not affect. It could mention behaviors like non-existent IDs or whether dependent items (nodes, edges) are disassociated, but those are not critical for a correctly formed call.

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?

The schema already fully documents the only parameter (workflow_id) at 100% coverage, describing it as 'The workflow id to delete.' The description adds no additional semantic detail or format requirements beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline 3 without adding value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Remove a workflow draft...') and immediately differentiates the scope from exported or run artifacts. An agent can clearly tell this is the only tool for deleting a workflow draft among siblings, which include no other delete tool.

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 provides contextual guidance by stating irreversibility and that it only affects the draft, not exported or run items. However, it does not explicitly say when to prefer this over alternate approaches or what excludes its use beyond that scoping. The 'only the draft' phrase implies limitations but leaves implicit when a user might need a different tool.

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