delete_workflow_trigger

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

The description explicitly warns 'DESTRUCTIVE' and states 'Permanently delete', which aligns with and reinforces the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false). It adds the 'permanently' qualifier, which is useful context beyond the annotation. However, it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as cascading effects, irreversibility beyond the obvious, or whether related resources are affected.

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 extremely short and front-loads the critical destructive warning. It earns its place with the 'permanently' qualifier, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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 destructive operation, the description plus annotations and schema are mostly sufficient. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what happens after deletion (e.g., success response, errors), and the 'id' parameter is undocumented. The description is adequate but leaves minor gaps.

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 documented in the schema, but 'id' has no description. The tool description does not add any parameter-level meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema covers half the parameters and the description adds nothing, a baseline of 3 is 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?

The description states a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('workflow trigger'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_workflow or delete_workflow_action. It is concise and unambiguous, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the broader delete_* family beyond the resource name.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any context about prerequisites or consequences beyond the destructive warning. The description implies it is for deleting a workflow trigger, but it does not explain when a user should choose this over update_workflow_trigger or other delete tools.

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