delete_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly warns that the operation is permanent and deletes execution history, and it clarifies the optional delete_children parameter's effect. It does not disclose permission requirements or possible side effects beyond the mentioned ones, but it covers the critical destructive nature well.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clarifying sentence on permanent deletion, a clean Args list, and a Returns list. Every sentence adds value, and the format is easily scannable. There is no redundant information.

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?

Given that the tool has only three parameters, two required, and an output schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers all parameters and return values. It lacks details on error conditions, permissions, or whether the deletion of children is recursive, but these are not essential for basic invocation. The description is sufficient for correct use.

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?

The input schema provides only titles with no descriptions (0% schema description coverage). The description's Args section adds essential meaning for all three parameters: application_name, workflow_id, and delete_children, including types, required status, and default values. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of detail.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Delete a workflow from DBOS Conductor' and 'Permanently deletes a workflow and its execution history.' This uses a specific verb and resource, and the permanent deletion detail distinguishes it from sibling tools like cancel_workflow or pause_schedule.

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?

The description implies usage when a workflow and its execution history should be permanently removed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like cancel_workflow or resume_workflow. There is no 'when not to use' guidance, so the usage context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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