delete_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that deletion is not recoverable and instructs the agent to confirm with the user first, which is critical behavioral context for a destructive operation. It does not mention side effects on associated data or permission requirements, but the irreversibility warning is the most important behavior.

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 two short sentences with zero redundancy. The primary purpose is stated first, followed by the critical warning. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool with one parameter and an output schema present, the description covers the core purpose and the most essential behavioral warning. It is sufficient for the agent to invoke correctly. It does not elaborate on return values, but the output schema likely handles that, so missing that detail is acceptable.

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 already provides full coverage (100%) of the single parameter (workspace_id) with a description ('The workspace UUID.'). The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is fine given the high coverage. Baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a workspace'), which is unambiguous. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like update_workspace or list_workspaces by naming the exact operation. The warning about non-recoverability reinforces the purpose as a destructive action.

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 (delete a workspace) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as update_workspace or list_workspaces. It provides no 'when to use this vs. that' guidance. The confirmation warning hints at cautious usage, but it is not framed as a routing criterion.

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