Delete workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the bar for extra value is met by the description spelling out the destruction footprint — steps, execution history, and the fact that contacts partway through are dropped. That is meaningful context beyond the boolean hint. It stops short of describing return shape or any permission requirements, so not a full 5.

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?

Four labeled, front-loaded sentences (Purpose, Not for, Returns, Use when) with zero filler. Each line contributes either scoping, an alternative, or an operational consequence.

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 single-parameter deletion tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, the destructive scope, the reversible alternative, and a minimal returns statement. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 parameter (id, a workflow UUID), so the schema fully carries this burden. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is correct.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Permanently delete a workflow") and immediately enumerates the scope of what is deleted: its steps and its execution history. This distinguishes it from siblings like plunk_bulk_delete_workflows, plunk_delete_workflow_step, and plunk_update_workflow without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly names the alternative and the condition that selects it: "Not for: Stopping it temporarily — set enabled to false via plunk_update_workflow, which is reversible." The "Use when" clause adds the positive trigger ("an automation is genuinely retired"), so both the when and the when-not are covered.

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