Delete Workspace

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly warns that deleting a workspace discards all changes and permanently loses unversioned work, and it recommends a pre-check. It does not mention permission requirements or whether versions themselves are recoverable, but the core destructive behavior is transparently conveyed.

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 only two sentences, with the primary action and its most important consequence ('discarding every change in it') front-loaded. The second sentence adds the critical warning and actionable pre-check without any filler or repetition.

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 a simple delete operation with three fully documented parameters and an output schema present, the description fully covers the necessary behavioral context: what is deleted, what is lost, and what to check beforehand. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool safely in the context of the sibling list.

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 each parameter clearly described as a numeric ID in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither improves nor harms parameter understanding—meeting the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('workspace'), and a crucial scope qualifier ('discarding every change in it'). It further clarifies the semantics by noting unversioned changes are lost, which distinguishes this from update_workspace or sync_workspace among the many sibling tools.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to 'Check get_workspace_status first', establishing a clear precondition before invoking the destructive operation. It does not name a non-deletion alternative or state when to avoid deletion, but the status-check directive provides enough context for safe usage.

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