Workflows: step 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 by structured data. The description adds a non-obvious behavioral trait beyond that: the tool warns when other steps link to the deleted step, which signals a reference-integrity risk the agent should anticipate.

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 the destructive action first and the caveat in a compact parenthetical. Every word earns its place with no preamble or restatement of the title.

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?

Annotations carry the destructive profile, so the description need not re-explain safety. However, for a destructive mutation the ambiguity of 'warns' matters: it is unclear whether the warning aborts the delete or is advisory only, and whether link references are orphaned. That gap leaves an agent needing to probe behavior at call time.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters (workflow_id, step_id) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint information beyond that, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a step from a workflow'), which an agent can immediately separate from the sibling step operations workflows_step_add, workflows_step_update and workflows_step_get. It does not explicitly name any sibling, so it lands at clear-but-not-routing rather than a 5.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. must the workflow be disabled first?), and no when-not-to-use guidance. The only hint is the parenthetical about linked steps, which is a behavioral note rather than usage direction.

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