delete-workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the critical irreversible nature ('cannot be undone') which is essential for a destructive operation, and specifies JSON formatting requirements. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens to associated resources when a workflow is deleted.

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 concise with just two sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the core function and specifying critical formatting requirements. Every word earns its place, and the warning about irreversibility is appropriately front-loaded.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes a valid workflow ID, what the 'clientId' parameter is for, what happens upon successful deletion, or what error responses might look like. The irreversible warning is good but doesn't provide complete operational context.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for 2 parameters, the description fails to explain what 'clientId' and 'id' represent. While it mentions arguments must be provided as compact JSON, it doesn't clarify parameter meanings, formats, or relationships. The description doesn't compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('workflow by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this from other deletion tools like 'delete-credential' or 'delete-project' beyond specifying the workflow resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'deactivate-workflow' or 'delete-execution'. It mentions the irreversible nature but doesn't help the agent choose between this and other destructive operations in the sibling tool list.

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