DeleteWorkflow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action '删除工作流' (Delete workflow) without any details on permissions required, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, side effects, error conditions, or response format. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically insufficient and fails to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond the basic 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?

The description is a single phrase '删除工作流' (Delete workflow), which is overly concise to the point of under-specification. While it avoids unnecessary words, it lacks any structuring or front-loading of critical information, making it inefficient for the agent to understand the tool's purpose and use. Every sentence should earn its place, but here the minimal content fails to provide adequate context.

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?

Given the tool's complexity as a destructive deletion operation, the absence of annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not address behavioral aspects like safety, permissions, or outcomes, nor does it clarify the resource being deleted. For a tool with significant implications and no structured support, the description fails to provide the necessary context for 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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with clear documentation for Id, ClientUniqueCode, and EnvType parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining parameter interactions or usage examples. However, since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description does not need to compensate for gaps but also adds no extra 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 '删除工作流' (Delete workflow) is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'DeleteWorkflow' in Chinese. It provides no additional specificity about what constitutes a 'workflow' in this context or how the deletion operates. While it correctly identifies the verb and resource, it fails to distinguish this tool from other deletion tools like DeleteWorkflowDefinition or DeleteResource, leaving the purpose vague.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, conditions for use, or compare it to sibling tools such as DeleteWorkflowDefinition or DeleteWorkflowInstances. Without any context or exclusions, the agent lacks essential information to make an informed selection among deletion-related tools.

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