delete_workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful '(admin)' permission requirement, but says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects, or whether the confirm flag is mandatory for this single (non-bulk) operation.

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?

A single tight sentence with the essential information front-loaded, no padding. It is arguably under-specified rather than over-long.

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 annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. The admin requirement is noted, but the role of the 'confirm' flag and any side effects of deletion are not addressed.

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 50%: 'confirm' is documented in the schema, 'workflowId' is not. The description only implies workflowId via 'by id' and adds no semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (workflow) plus the identifying parameter (id), and adds an '(admin)' scope hint. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling create/get/update_workflow tools, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no stated prerequisites beyond the parenthetical '(admin)'. The agent must infer everything about the correct context for calling this.

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