DeleteWorkflowDefinition

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. While '删除' (delete) implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't specify whether this deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects dependent resources, or has confirmation prompts. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.

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, efficient phrase in Chinese that directly states the action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. However, it could be slightly more front-loaded with critical context given the destructive nature of the operation.

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 this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address critical behavioral aspects (permanence, dependencies, permissions) or provide usage guidance relative to similar tools. The 100% schema coverage helps with parameters, but the overall context for safe and correct use is inadequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (ProjectId and Id) clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 '删除数据开发工作流' (Delete data development workflow) clearly states the verb (delete) and resource (data development workflow), which is specific enough to understand the basic action. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like DeleteWorkflow, DeleteTask, DeleteResource, etc.), leaving ambiguity about what specifically is being deleted.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple deletion tools available (DeleteWorkflow, DeleteTask, DeleteResource, etc.), there's no indication of what makes a 'workflow definition' different from a 'workflow' or when this specific deletion is appropriate. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, dependencies, or alternatives.

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