neurover_delete_workflow

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds the key nuance the annotations cannot convey: deletion is soft — the canvas goes to an archive on the server and only disappears from the list. It also states the confirm=true requirement. It does not say whether the archived canvas can be restored through this API or what the call returns.

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 compact sentences, with the action and its real-world effect front-loaded before the usage constraint. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs trimming.

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 delete tool, the description covers effect, soft-delete semantics, and the user-consent gate — enough to call it safely without an output schema. The remaining gap is the unexplained account parameter and the absence of any note on restore/reversibility.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly explains confirm=true and implies workflowId via "полотно", but the account parameter is never mentioned, leaving one of three parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 gives a specific verb plus resource ("Удалить полотно" = delete canvas/workflow), and the parenthetical clarifies the effect (archived server-side, removed from the list). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like neurover_rename_workflow, neurover_clone_workflow, neurover_delete_node or neurover_delete_media, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

"Только по прямой просьбе пользователя, confirm=true" gives an explicit precondition for invoking the tool, which is exactly the gating an agent needs for a destructive operation. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. archive vs. node-level deletion) or stating what to do if the user is ambiguous.

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