ed_delete_workspace

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds critical context: permanent deletion, irreversibility, inclusion of all files inside, and the ownership restriction. This goes beyond the structured annotations and gives the agent a full understanding of the operation's impact.

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 concise sentences deliver the core message first (permanent, irreversible, includes files) and then the scope limitation. No wasted words, exceptionally front-loaded.

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 single-parameter delete tool with annotations, the description covers the essential context: destructive, permanent, irreversible, scope, and associated data. It lacks explicit return-value details, but there's no output schema and such details are not critical for a delete operation.

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 description does not mention the workspace_id parameter or clarify its role beyond the schema's basic name/type/length. With 0% schema description coverage, the description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter-level context, though the parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory.

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 a specific action: permanently deleting the user's own Ed workspace, including all files, with an explicit scope limitation ('只删自己建的'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ed_list_workspaces, ed_create_workspace, and ed_update_workspace.

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 clear context: only delete workspaces the user created. It implies when to use (for user's own workspaces) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions beyond the ownership constraint. The destructive nature is implicit but well-stated.

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