Ghl Delete Workflow

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'DESTRUCTIVE' is a useful explicit warning about the irreversible nature of the operation, but it does not elaborate on side effects, permissions, or recovery options.

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?

The description is only two short sentences, both of which earn their place. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with a high-signal danger warning.

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 two-parameter delete operation, the description is mostly adequate: the required workflow_id is semantically covered and the output schema exists. However, the optional location_id is left unexplained, and the behavioral warning lacks detail about consequences beyond 'DESTRUCTIVE'.

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?

The phrase 'by UUID' adds some meaning to workflow_id, but location_id is completely unexplained. Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description should compensate by clarifying both parameters, and it only partially does so.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), resource ('workflow'), and identifier type ('by UUID'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It differentiates cleanly from siblings like ghl_get_workflow and ghl_list_workflows.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, when not to use it, or what conditions should precede deletion. The word 'DESTRUCTIVE' implies caution but does not provide explicit usage direction.

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