rsc_delete_workflow

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the non-obvious behavior an agent cannot infer: the file is removed from disk yet remains callable until restart, plus where the file lives. That is exactly the extra context the annotations don't carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and target, followed by location, side effect, Args and Returns. Every line earns its place; the Args/Returns headings are slightly heavy for a single-parameter tool but not wasteful.

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?

With no output schema, the description still documents the return dict (status, name, path), the file location, and the restart-dependent lifecycle. An agent has everything needed to call and interpret this destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the lone parameter has no description in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It specifies that name is the workflow name 'as returned by rsc_list_workflows', which usefully points the agent to the authoritative source of valid values rather than inventing one.

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 (Delete) and resource (user-defined workflow), with the exact on-disk location. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings rsc_save_workflow and rsc_list_workflows, which handle creation and enumeration of the same artifact.

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?

It gives the operating context (config dir, RUBRIK_MCP_CONFIG_DIR override) and the key lifecycle caveat that the workflow still runs this session but won't load after restart, which frames when a delete is or isn't sufficient. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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