workspace_destroy

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 only states 'Destroy a workspace by ID,' which merely restates the tool's name and adds no information about irreversibility, side effects, safety warnings, or confirmation requirements. For a destructive operation, this is a critical gap.

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 a single, grammatically concise sentence with no filler. However, it is under-specified rather than properly concise—it omits essential behavioral details that could have been included in a few extra words. It is not as stark as a tautology, but it lacks substantive content.

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?

There is an output schema and only one parameter, so complexity is low. Yet because no annotations exist and the description provides no warnings or side-effect context, the tool is not fully described for an agent. A destructive operation needs at minimum an irreversibility note or confirmation requirement.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. However, 'by ID' merely mirrors the schema property 'workspace_id' without adding any meaning about the ID format, source, or constraints. The parameter remains under-explained.

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 the action ('Destroy') and the resource ('a workspace') with a specific identifier ('by ID'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like workspace_create, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites (e.g., ensuring workspace is unused) or exclusion of cases where other tools might be more appropriate. The description leaves usage entirely implicit.

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