Workflows: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that — no statement about whether deletion is permanent, whether associated workflow steps/jobs are cascaded, or whether the operation can be undone. With annotations doing the safety work, the description needed to contribute the 'what gets destroyed' context and did not.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 mutation with no output schema, the description should convey consequences: permanence, cascading deletions, or required permissions. None of that is present, leaving the agent to call a destructive tool with only a verb phrase of context.

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 parameter is documented as 'Workflow ID to delete', so the schema fully carries parameter meaning. The description adds no syntax or sourcing detail (e.g., where to obtain the ID, whether it accepts slugs), 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?

The description states a specific verb (delete) and resource (workflow), so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the many sibling workflow tools (workflows_disable, workflows_step_delete, workflows_update), which are adjacent in name and could plausibly also remove something. The agent gets the verb+resource but no routing signal.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as workflows_disable (a likely reversible counterpart) or workflows_step_delete. No prerequisites, no warnings about irreversibility. The agent must infer that this is the permanent removal path.

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