Delete workflow

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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint=true) and non-idempotent, but the description adds the crucial behavioral detail 'permanently,' indicating irreversibility. It also hints at a safer alternative, which is valuable context beyond the structured hints.

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?

Two short, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded and the alternative guidance is concise, making the description easy to parse and act on.

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 simple single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential points: what it deletes, permanence, and a safer alternative. With no output schema, return behavior isn't specified, but this is a minor omission for a delete action and the description remains functional.

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 carries the burden of explaining the 'id' parameter. It does clarify that 'id' refers to an automation rule/workflow, but it adds no further detail about types, meaning, or requirements beyond what the schema already defines. The compensation is partial.

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?

Description states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('automation rule'), and a defining qualifier ('permanently'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_workflow by naming the alternative, so there is no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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?

The description explicitly names the alternative tool (update_workflow with enabled:false) and advises considering it instead. While it doesn't spell out exact conditions for when each is appropriate, the word 'instead' implies the choice between soft-disabling and permanent deletion, giving useful guidance.

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