workload_delete

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the danger profile is covered. The description adds a real behavioral detail beyond annotations: that saved runs are only deleted optionally, which affects the blast radius of the call. It does not say whether the deletion is irreversible or how a missing name is handled.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the primary action front-loaded and the optional side effect trailing in parentheses. Appropriately sized for a two-parameter destructive operation.

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 mutation with no output schema and undocumented parameters, the description is adequate but thin: it omits irreversibility, permission requirements, and behavior when the workload does not exist. The destructive annotation covers the safety signal, leaving only these gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does convey the semantics of both parameters (name identifies the workload, "optionally its saved runs" maps to runs_too), but it adds no format, matching, or default information beyond that ordinal mapping.

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 and resource ("Delete a saved workload") and clarifies scope with the parenthetical about optionally removing saved runs, which distinguishes it from the sibling workload_delete_run. It is clear, though it does not explicitly name the alternative tools an agent might confuse it with.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when the runs_too variant should be preferred. The agent gets a definition but no routing context despite several similar workload tools existing.

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