Workflows: step delete

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the referential-integrity refusal path, the consequence of deleting the start step (orphaned workflow entry point), and the required user confirmation. This is exactly the extra context annotations cannot carry.

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 sentences, each earning its place: core action, linking constraint plus remedy, start-step caveat, and the user-confirmation instruction. The primary action is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 covers failure modes, prerequisites, downstream consequences, and the safety check. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and safely.

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 both parameters are self-documented (workflow_id even points to workflows_list), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no format or syntax detail for the parameters themselves, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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') and immediately scopes it with the linking caveat. An agent can tell it apart from siblings like workflows_step_add, workflows_step_link, and workflows_step_update without opening any schema.

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 describes when the call will be refused (steps still pointing via on_success/on_failure), names the prerequisite tool to resolve it (workflows_step_link), and instructs the agent to confirm with the user before running. Covers when-not and the alternative in one pass.

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