delete_layout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently reveals that this is a legacy tool equivalent to delete_workspace, and that it deletes workspaces saved by two different methods. While it doesn't warn about irreversibility or error cases, the core behavior is clearly and honestly stated, adding valuable context beyond the bare action.

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 three sentences, each adding necessary information: the core action, the legacy relationship, and usage context. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and avoids unnecessary verbiage. Every sentence earns its place, making it both concise and well-structured.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the description provides adequate context: what it deletes, how it relates to save_layout/save_workspace, when to use it, and where to find names. It does not describe error behavior or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, this is a minor gap. The description is essentially complete for practical use.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter, and the description only says 'with that name' without detailing format or constraints. However, it does add the useful hint that existing names are listed in get_state, which helps the agent know where to find valid values. This partially compensates for the 0% schema coverage, but more specific parameter guidance would be better.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'saved workspace', and specifies that it works regardless of whether it was saved with save_layout or save_workspace. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling delete_workspace by explicitly noting it is a legacy name, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly says new integrations should call delete_workspace instead, providing a clear when-not-to-use alternative. It also tells the user to use it to clean up unwanted saved workspaces and points to get_state for listing existing names, giving concrete context for when this tool is appropriate.

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