Delete Transformation

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 reveals a non-obvious and important behavior: the deletion is workspace-scoped and does not immediately affect production. This adds substantive context beyond the plain verb 'Delete', though it does not address reversibility or permission requirements.

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 two sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the critical caveat about production impact is placed immediately after, earning its place by conveying essential operational nuance.

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 simple flat parameter list (4 IDs) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted and the important workspace-vs-production distinction. It omits minor details like reversibility, but the core decision-relevant information is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters documented as 'Numeric ... ID'. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the complete schema. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already handles parameter semantics fully.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('a transformation from a workspace'), clearly distinguishing this from the many other delete_* tools in the sibling list. It goes beyond a tautology by adding scope ('from a workspace'), and the name 'delete_transformation' is accurately expanded without ambiguity.

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 about when to use this tool: it explicitly states that deletion affects the workspace only and that the transformation remains in production until a new version is published. This tells an agent the operational consequence and implies that production removal requires a separate publish step, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions.

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