Delete Workflow

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

With no annotations and no output schema details, the description must disclose behavioral implications. It states the delete action, but does not explicitly mention irreversibility, cascading effects on executions or folders, authentication requirements, or what happens if the workflow does not exist. These are significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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, front-loaded sentence with no extra words. Every part contributes to the core meaning, making it easy to parse and immediately actionable.

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 simple single-parameter delete tool, the core call shape is clear, but contextual details are missing: no usage conditions, no side-effect disclosure, and no mention of irreversibility. An agent invoking safely would benefit from knowing whether deletion is permanent or whether the workflow must be deactivated first.

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?

The schema provides only a workflow_id string with no further description, and the description adds no new meaning beyond 'by ID.' With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to clarify the ID format, source, or required state, but it simply restates the parameter name's obvious meaning.

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 workflow by ID.' It clearly identifies the action and the identifying parameter, and it differentiates from sibling tools like update_workflow, get_workflow, and activate_workflow by naming a distinct destructive operation.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deactivate_workflow or update_workflow. There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or consequences (e.g., whether the workflow must be inactive before deletion), leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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