delete_workflow

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the context of permanence (irreversible) and identifies the exact resource destroyed (workflow). This goes beyond annotations by clarifying the consequence of the action.

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?

A single, direct sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 delete operation with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the core purpose and relies on annotations for safety context. Missing elements include return value or error scenarios, but these are not critical for a basic delete tool.

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 provides 100% coverage with 'Workflow ID to delete', so the description does not need to add parameter details. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter, and the description merely reinforces the 'by ID' concept.

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 it permanently deletes a workflow by ID. The verb 'delete' and resource 'workflow' are specific, and it distinguishes itself from siblings like delete_execution (which deletes executions) and get_workflow (which retrieves).

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 implies usage when a workflow must be removed, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. For instance, it does not contrast with deactivate_workflow, which would be the non-destructive alternative. The 'Permanently' suggests irreversibility but no explicit when-to-use guidance.

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