discard_demo_workspace

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and meets it exceptionally. It discloses the destructive scope (hard-delete, every row), refusal behavior for non-demo kinds, required permissions, the confirmation requirement, and idempotent retry semantics (replays stored result even after deletion). This goes well beyond basic intent and prepares the agent for side effects.

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?

Three dense sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by routing exclusions, preconditions, and retry behavior. Each clause adds essential information an agent needs before calling this destructive tool.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, scope, alternatives, prerequisites, confirmation, and idempotency. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing; the only minor omission is explicit return behavior, but that is not essential for a hard-delete 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains confirmed:true as a required confirmation flag, clarifies idempotencyKey behavior (retry replays the stored result), and ties workspaceId to the target demo workspace through the kind checks. Every parameter's role is meaningfully addressed despite the bare schema.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Hard-delete a demo workspace and every row under it.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by naming discard_testmandant for Testmandant workspaces and noting live workspaces can only be archived (A23). An agent can identify exactly which workspace type this tool targets.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: demo workspaces only. It gives concrete refusal conditions for non-demo kinds, names the exact alternative tool for Testmandants (discard_testmandant), and clarifies that live workspaces must be archived rather than hard-deleted. It also flags preconditions: manage_settings permission and confirmed:true, with the consequence if confirmation is missing.

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