ci_workflows_delete_instance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP method. It does not state that the operation is destructive/irreversible, whether it cascades to related build runs, or what authorization is needed.

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 text is short but wastes its only content on a verbatim duplication of the same route in parentheses, adding zero information. Brevity here comes from under-specification rather than efficiency.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no usage context, the description is completely inadequate. An agent has nothing to confirm safety profile, side effects, or success/failure behavior.

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 there is only one required parameter, so the schema already documents 'id' as the resource identifier. The route string implies the id is a path parameter, a marginal addition over the schema, which is why the baseline of 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?

The description only restates the HTTP verb and route ('DELETE /v1/ciWorkflows/{id}'), which is essentially a tautology of the tool name ci_workflows_delete_instance. It never explains in plain language what a CI workflow is or what deleting one means, and it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling delete tools such as ci_products_delete_instance or pass_type_ids_delete_instance.

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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, what prerequisites or permissions it requires, or which alternative to reach for. The agent must infer everything from the endpoint string alone.

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