Docflow Delete Workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns that deletion is permanent and lists the affected contents (files, categories, review rules), which is valuable for a destructive operation. It could add more about auth requirements or undo options, but the core risks are clearly communicated.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, and the critical warning is placed prominently. The structure is highly scannable and effective for an agent deciding whether to call this destructive tool.

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 one-parameter destructive operation with an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted, the endpoint, and the severe consequences. It does not discuss prerequisites or alternative deletion paths, but those are not critical for invoking this tool correctly. The warning about permanent deletion and affected entities makes it sufficiently complete.

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?

There is only one parameter, workspace_id, and the schema provides no description for it (0% coverage). The tool description indirectly clarifies that the parameter identifies the workspace to delete, but it does not explicitly explain the parameter format or how to obtain a valid workspace_id. The meaning is inferable from the tool name and description, so this is adequate but not richly detailed.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a clear resource ('a workspace'), and the scope of the operation ('all its contents'). It also names the endpoint, making the tool's action unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools like docflow_delete_category or docflow_delete_files.

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 clearly implies this tool is for deleting an entire workspace, not individual files or categories. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or state when not to use it, so the usage guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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