destroy_workspace

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 destructive nature ('Destroy') and scope ('all its processes'), which is critical, but lacks details on permissions needed, confirmation steps, error handling, or what happens to associated data. For a high-impact mutation tool, this leaves significant gaps.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It immediately conveys the core action and scope without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover critical aspects like return values, error conditions, side effects on related resources, or safety warnings. Given the high-stakes nature of workspace destruction, more context is needed for safe and effective 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 100%, with the single parameter 'workspace_id' documented as 'Workspace to destroy'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Destroy') and resource ('a workspace and all its processes'), distinguishing it from siblings like create_workspace, list_workspaces, start_process, and stop_process. It precisely communicates the tool's destructive scope beyond just the workspace itself.

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 like stop_process or delete operations. The description implies it's for permanent removal but doesn't specify prerequisites, irreversible consequences, or contextual triggers for choosing destruction over other actions.

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