Permanently delete a workflow while leaving already processed documents unchanged. Requires confirmation to proceed.
⚠️ DESTRUCTIVE: Permanently delete a workflow. Documents it already processed are not changed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm this destructive operation |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the deletion is permanent, and documents already processed by the workflow are not affected. This is genuinely useful behavioral disclosure.
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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences that front-load the destructive warning and then add the key side-effect clarification. Every word earns its place and no filler is present.
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 simple two-parameter delete tool with a confirm flag already documented in the schema, the description covers the essential side-effect and permanence. It does not mention return behavior or prerequisites, but these are largely unnecessary for this operation, so the description is close to complete.
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 50%: the confirm parameter is described, but id has no schema description. The tool description does not compensate by explaining that id identifies the workflow or how confirm must be supplied, so it adds little beyond the schema.
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 names a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('workflow'), and clarifies that the deletion is permanent. It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like delete_workflow_action or delete_workflow_trigger by stating exactly what object is removed.
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?
No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_workflow_action, disable/update_workflow, or when deletion should be avoided. The destructive warning implies caution, but it does not provide explicit usage conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.