vro_delete_workflow

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

The destructiveHint=true annotation already tells the agent this is a destructive operation, lowering the disclosure bar. The description usefully adds that the workflow may be resolved by an exact name rather than only an id, but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, what dependencies or versions are affected, or what permissions are needed, and the boolean 'force' behavior is entirely undisclosed.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation and identifier semantics front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-terse for a destructive tool, but nothing is wasted.

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, irreversible-sounding delete with an undocumented 'force' flag, no output schema, and only a destructiveHint annotation, the description omits permanence, dependency/version side effects, and auth requirements. An agent has enough to attempt the call but not enough to judge the consequences.

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, the description carries the burden, and it does clarify the required 'workflow' parameter (id or exact name), which is more than the schema states. However, the 'force' boolean is left completely unexplained in both schema and description, so the compensation is only partial.

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 ('Delete a workflow'), which clearly separates it from read-oriented siblings like vro_get_workflow and write siblings like vro_save_workflow. It adds a resolvable-identifier clause ('by id or exact name'), though it never references a sibling by name to route the agent explicitly.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as vro_save_workflow (which can overwrite) or vro_find_workflows (to locate a target first), and no mention of prerequisites or irreversibility. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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