ghl_workflow_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds meaningful non-obvious context: deleting 'ends any enrollments in progress, so contacts currently moving through the workflow stop where they are' and the 403 WORKFLOW_API_NOT_ENABLED_FOR_LOCATION availability gate. It loses a point because a large share of the behavioral text (daily quota, 10s burst, log retention) is generic workflow-API boilerplate rather than delete-specific behavior.

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 delete-specific content is buried behind a long generic preamble covering availability, suggested build order, rate limits, and log retention that has no bearing on deleting a workflow. Multiple blocks repeat the limited-availability warning, so several sentences do not earn their place for this tool.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers the critical facts: permanent deletion, in-progress enrollment termination, availability restriction, endpoint, and OAuth scope. What it lacks is a return/response expectation and guidance on what state contacts end up in after enrollment termination.

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 100% and both locationId and workflowId are documented in the schema itself. The description mentions {workflowId} in the endpoint path but adds no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a workflow') and immediately distinguishes the operation by the endpoint DELETE /workflows/{workflowId} and the OAuth scope workflows.delete. It is clearly separable from siblings such as ghl_workflow_update_status or ghl_workflow_get_definition.

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?

Usage is only implied by the verb 'Delete' plus the caution 'Treat it as permanent.' The 'Suggested order' sentence describes the create/publish pipeline, not when to choose deletion over e.g. ghl_workflow_update_status to move a workflow to draft or inactive, and no alternatives are named for this specific operation.

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