lbb_workflows_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that by detailing exactly what is destroyed versus preserved (e.g. deleting search.embed removes the embedding and vectors and the class stops being searchable, while filed suggestions stay). This is exactly the kind of consequence disclosure a mutation tool needs.

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 action is front-loaded, but the description is meandering, stacking multiple illustrative examples (search.embed, ontology.fit, developer workflow) in one run-on passage. It is informative but not tightly edited, and some clauses are ambiguous.

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?

With no output schema and a destructive mutation, the description adequately covers consequences, the confirmation requirement, and the starter distinction. It is complete enough for an agent to act correctly, though the reasoning about which workflow type applies could be clearer.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by explaining the semantics of starter ('Without starter it deletes a workflow with triggers by its name') and confirm ('confirm must repeat the name'), adding meaning beyond the schema strings.

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 opening clause names a specific verb and resource ('Delete a triggered workflow') and distinguishes it from siblings like lbb_workflows_manage and lbb_embeddings_delete. The purpose is clear, though the sentence structure becomes convoluted with layered examples.

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?

It gives a direct instruction ('Ask the user first; confirm must repeat the name') and explains when to omit starter. However, it never states when to use this tool versus lbb_workflows_manage or other alternatives, so routing guidance is only implied.

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