Workflows: delete

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety class is already known; the description goes further by disclosing the cascade (triggers and steps are removed), that the workflow stops running, and that the operation is irreversible ("can't be restored"). That irreversibility and blast-radius detail is not recoverable from the annotations.

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?

Four short sentences, each carrying distinct payload: action, consequence, alternatives, and safety prompt. The destructive outcome is front-loaded rather than buried.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, everything an agent needs is present: what is deleted, what else is destroyed, that it is irreversible, safer alternatives, and a confirmation expectation. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `id` parameter already documents both its meaning and how to find it (workflows_list). The description adds no format, type, or lookup nuance beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a workflow") and immediately qualifies scope by stating the cascade: triggers and steps go with it. It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like workflows_disable, workflows_export, and workflows_update.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives with their selecting conditions: `workflows_disable` for temporary stops and `workflows_export` when a copy is wanted first. It also adds a procedural precondition (confirm with the user), which is exactly the when-to-use guidance a destructive tool needs.

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