delete_workflow

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

Description discloses that the tool is destructive (delete) and requires specific permissions, which is critical behavioral information. Without annotations, it carries the full transparency burden. It could mention irreversibility or post-deletion effects, but for a simple ID-based delete, it is sufficiently transparent.

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?

Two sentences total; the first states the core action and resource, the second adds prerequisites. No wasted words. The action verb is front-loaded, making it efficient for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers all necessary aspects: what it does, how to use it (permissions), and its destructive nature. No critical information is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of the single parameter (id) with a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter details, but the 100% schema coverage means the description does not need to. The overall tool context (destructive, permissions) indirectly aids parameter understanding. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states the verb (delete), resource (Dynatrace Automation workflow), and identifier (by ID). It also tags the tool as WRITE and destructive, making its purpose unmistakable. Among siblings with similar delete_* tools, it is clearly differentiated by specifying the workflow context.

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 lists required prerequisites (DT_ENABLE_WRITES=true and automation:workflows:write scope), providing clear usage conditions. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like update_workflow or list_workflows, though the destructive nature implies a specific use case. Lacks explicit when-not to use.

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