delete_workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses destructive permanence ('Permanently delete'), scope ('every version it contains'), and the confirmation requirement. It does not mention potential side effects on dependent resources, but the key behavioral traits are adequately revealed.

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. Essential information is front-loaded: the destructive action, scope, and confirmation requirement. Every word earns its place.

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 delete tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequately complete. It defines the action, scope, and confirmation rule. It does not explain return values, but that is acceptable given the tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema.

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% with descriptive definitions for both parameters. The description adds value by reinforcing that workflow_id is a family identifier and explicitly stating the confirmation requirement, which complements the schema rather than simply repeating it.

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?

Description clearly states the action: 'Permanently delete a workflow family and every version it contains.' It specifies the resource (workflow family) and the scope (all versions), distinguishing it from other delete tools like delete_dataset or delete_evaluator.

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 implies when to use this tool (when you need to delete a workflow family entirely) and includes a critical usage requirement: 'Requires the current workflow name as confirmation.' It does not explicitly mention alternatives, but the scope is clear enough for the agent to select it appropriately.

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