Destroy workspace

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

Annotations already disclose destructiveness (destructiveHint=true) and idempotency (idempotentHint=true). The description adds the crucial behavioral detail that it deletes 'everything in it,' specifying the full scope of destruction. This goes beyond the annotation and provides valuable transparency without contradicting the structured data.

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 two sentences long and immediately states the primary action ('Deletes a workspace and everything in it'). The second sentence adds a valuable idempotency note. No wasted words or unnecessary detail.

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 simplicity (one required parameter), the annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description is largely complete. It covers the destructive scope and idempotency, which are the main behavioral aspects. It might mention reversibility or permissions, but these are not critical given the annotations.

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 has only one parameter (workspaceId) with no description (0% schema description coverage). The description does not explain the parameter at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the tool name alone. Since schema coverage is low, the description should compensate but does not, resulting in a low score.

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 tool's function: 'Deletes a workspace and everything in it.' It uses a specific verb ('deletes'), resource ('workspace'), and scope ('everything in it'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_workspace, create_workspace, write_files, and run_tests.

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 as the destructive operation for workspaces. It also provides a clear usage condition: 'Safe to call on an id that no longer exists,' which is a useful guideline. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, though the context with siblings makes the intended use clear.

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