Delete Workspace

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it names the destroyed resources, warns the action is irreversible, discloses that the return payload is an intermediate "deleting" state with asynchronous background completion, and documents the 204 response for repeat calls. That asynchronous + re-invocation behavior is exactly the context annotations cannot express.

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, no filler, and the irreversible/destructive nature is front-loaded before the return-value detail. Every clause carries distinct information (scope, reversibility, async return, idempotent response code).

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, yet the description still covers the unusual async completion model, which the schema alone would not convey. Nothing an agent needs to safely invoke this one-parameter destructive tool is missing.

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 has 100% description coverage for the single workspace_id parameter ("The Workspace UUID"), so the schema carries the semantic burden. The description adds nothing about the identifier's format or sourcing, which is fine here and matches the baseline for fully-covered schemas.

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?

States a specific verb ("Permanently delete") and resource ("Workspace") and enumerates exactly what is destroyed (files, revisions, copies, conversations). This makes it trivially distinguishable from create_workspace, list_workspaces, and the changeset siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the description makes clear this is the terminal/destructive action and that it cannot be undone, but it never explicitly says when to choose it over alternatives or what prerequisites must hold first. With no sibling offering overlapping delete semantics, the omission is tolerable but leaves the agent to infer conditions.

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