delete-agent-versionsDelete inactive agent versions via DELETE /v1/delete-version. Active versions cannot be deleted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version_ids | Yes | One or more inactive version ids to delete |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes | JSON or plain text body returned by the Botsify HTTP API |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and non-read-only. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: the active/inactive version constraint and the HTTP endpoint. It does not elaborate on reversibility, but the destructive hint covers that.
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 one concise sentence with no redundancy. It front-loads the action and resource, then immediately states the critical constraint.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter), rich annotations (destructive, idempotent), and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient. It covers the core function and the key usage limitation without needing to explain return values.
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 schema description covers the only parameter (version_ids) with 'One or more inactive version ids to delete', achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no extra parameter detail beyond restating the inactive version constraint, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb (delete), resource (agent versions), and scope (inactive only). It also distinguishes from siblings like activate-agent-version by noting active versions cannot be deleted.
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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: only for inactive agent versions, with the explicit exclusion that active versions cannot be deleted. Though it doesn't name sibling tools like list-agent-versions, the constraint effectively guides usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as send-converse-message, send-inbox-message, send-user-message, and stream-user-message, which all deliver messages but with subtle differences. Similarly, list-bot-messenger-users and list-messenger-users both fetch messenger users, and start-builder-chat, clear-builder-conversation, and store-builder-response all manage builder chat state. Descriptions help, but the boundaries are still confusing.
Tool names consistently use hyphenated lowercase verb-noun format, but the verbs and nouns vary significantly in specificity. For example, 'get-query-response' vs 'query-mcp-agent' vs 'stream-user-message' all imply querying but with different styles. The pattern is readable but not highly predictable, with some names like 'change-user-activation' and 'patch-instruction-section' deviating from the simple verb_object structure.
With 44 tools, this server feels overloaded. The breadth covers bots, messaging, templates, whitelabel, and versions, but many tools could be consolidated (e.g., multiple message-sending variants). The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', making it difficult for agents to select the right tool without extensive context.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: agent creation, versioning, deployment, deletion, messaging, conversation history, user management, template management, and whitelabel operations. Minor gaps exist, such as missing delete for WhatsApp templates or update operations for user attributes, but these are workable edge cases. Core workflows are well supported.