delete_workflow

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but fails to describe critical traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, required permissions, error conditions (e.g., if the workflow is in use), or what happens to associated data. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.

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 with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource ('workflow'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a straightforward tool.

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 destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral risks, return values, error handling, or usage context. For a mutation tool with significant complexity implications, this minimal description fails to provide adequate guidance for safe and effective 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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds minimal value by implying the 'workflow_id' parameter is required for identification. However, it doesn't explain the parameter's format, constraints, or how to obtain valid IDs. With only one parameter and low schema coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves key semantics undocumented, meeting the baseline for minimal viability.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'delete_asset' or 'delete_story' by specifying the workflow resource type. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other workflow-related tools like 'update_workflow' or 'fetch_workflows' in terms of function, which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID), exclusions (e.g., not for bulk operations), or direct alternatives like 'bulk_delete_assets' for other resources. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection among the many delete-related siblings.

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