Delete workspace

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

With destructiveHint=true already declared, the description adds real value beyond annotations: the ownership requirement, the personal-workspace exclusion, and the specific failure mode (platform refuses and reports what is left behind). The confirmation requirement is also surfaced.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying a distinct constraint: eligibility, refusal behavior, and confirmation. The key restriction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers eligibility, authorization, failure behavior, and the confirmation protocol. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what to expect on refusal.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the const:true constraint on confirm and the workspace_list pointer for workspaceId. The description reinforces the confirmation gate but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 (delete) and resource (workspace) plus scoping constraints: must be empty, owner-only, and not the personal workspace. This separates it from project_delete and workspace_pause well enough, though it does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.

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?

Gives clear preconditions for use (empty workspace, owner role, non-personal) and explains that the platform refuses while live projects, sandboxes or volumes remain. It stops short of naming which alternative to reach for when the workspace is non-empty (e.g. project_delete or volume_delete).

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