Delete a Wiro workflow

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint and idempotent, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses irreversibility, removal from lists and gallery, loss of runnability, that in-flight runs finish, that existing copies survive, and that a team key affects teammates' workflows. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs before a destructive call.

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 with the destructive scope, then consequences, then the confirmation protocol. Every clause carries information, though the middle sentences are dense and could be broken up slightly for scanability.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, side effects, irreversibility, and the confirmation workflow. Nothing an agent needs to call this 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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra by explaining what confirm=false actually does (returns a description of what would be deleted rather than deleting), which the schema only hints at. Slug's URL-or-slug flexibility is left to the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a workflow') plus scope ('from the API key's workspace, for everyone'), which cleanly separates it from update_workflow, clone_workflow, and the agent-deletion siblings.

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?

Gives an explicit two-step protocol: without confirm it is a dry run, so ask the user and call again with confirm: true. That is clear operational guidance, though it never names an alternative action (e.g. archive/update) for cases where deletion is too strong.

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