delete_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature ('Delete a workspace and all its content') and a behavioral constraint ('cannot delete default workspace'), which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent/reversible, rate limits, or what happens to nested content. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a crucial limitation. Every word earns its place - there's no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary elaboration. It's appropriately sized for a destructive operation with clear constraints.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic but incomplete context. It covers the core action and one important constraint, but doesn't address permissions, reversibility, error conditions, or what happens to associated data. Given the tool's high-stakes nature, more behavioral disclosure would be beneficial despite the concise structure.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain workspaceId format or confirmDelete implications). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without additional param details in the description.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Delete'), the target resource ('a workspace and all its content'), and includes an important limitation ('cannot delete default workspace'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_note' or 'delete_group' which target different resources, and from 'rename_workspace' or 'update_workspace' which modify rather than destroy.

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 provides clear context about when NOT to use this tool ('cannot delete default workspace'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives like 'update_workspace' for modifying instead of deleting, or specify prerequisites such as needing workspace ID from 'get_workspace' or 'list_workspaces' first.

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