discard_demo_workspace

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint; the description goes well beyond them by naming the permission required, the needs_confirmation failure mode and why it exists (operator may have added experiments), and the exact idempotency semantics — a retry of the same key replays the stored result even though the workspace is gone.

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 and logically ordered (what it does, refusals, requirements, idempotency, consequence), but it repeats itself: the CONSEQUENCE block restates the deletion scope and permanence from sentence one, and the closing sentence re-states the A23 live-workspace rule already given.

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 3-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the full decision surface: eligibility, permission, confirmation, idempotency replay, error codes, and an explicit consequence statement. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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%, so the description has to carry the parameters, and it does for two of three: confirmed:true with the needs_confirmation fallback, and idempotencyKey with replay semantics. workspaceId is only implied by 'a demo workspace' rather than explained, leaving a small gap.

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 and resource — hard-delete a demo workspace and every row under it — and immediately bounds the scope to workspaces whose kind is demo. It distinguishes itself from discard_testmandant and archive_workspace by name, so an agent can pick correctly without opening a schema.

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 says when-not to use it: refuses on any non-demo workspace (not_a_demo_workspace), routes Testmandant to discard_testmandant, and states a live workspace can only be archived (A23). Prerequisites (manage_settings, confirmed:true) are spelled out with their failure codes.

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