Delete workspace

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description goes further by stating the operation cannot be undone, enumerating exactly what gets destroyed, and documenting a concrete failure mode with its status code. That is behavioral context beyond what the structured fields provide.

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 sentences, all earning their place: destructiveness first, then the error condition, then the escape hatch. Front-loaded and free of restatement.

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 only one parameter, the description covers irreversibility, cascade scope, and the 409 path. It stops short of noting permission requirements or what the success response looks like, which would fully close the loop for a destructive tool.

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% and the single workspace_id parameter is already described as coming from list_workspaces or create_workspace. The description adds nothing about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 is appropriate for a one-param tool where the schema does the work.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Permanently delete a workspace') and spells out the exact cascade scope (competitors, monitors, snapshots, changes). That scope statement alone distinguishes it from delete_competitor and delete_monitor, which share the deletion verb but not the cascade.

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 an explicit alternative ('To stop checks and keep history, use update_workspace with status paused') with the condition that selects it, plus the blocking condition (409 discovery_in_progress) under which the call will fail. An agent has everything it needs to choose between the two paths.

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