Permanently delete an AI agent.
WARNING: This cannot be undone. The agent and all its triggers will be removed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ID of the agent to delete | |
| in_workspace | No | Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / in_workspaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Run this one call in this workspace id instead of the session's. Nothing is stored; other sessions are not affected.",
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the operation is irreversible and cascades to delete all triggers, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of mentioning auth requirements or effects on references.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The permanence warning is front-loaded and the cascade consequence follows immediately, so the most decision-relevant information hits first.
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 tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the two facts that matter most: irreversibility and cascading trigger removal. It omits secondary concerns like workspace scoping behavior and permission requirements, keeping it just short of complete.
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 both parameters (agent_id, in_workspace) are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable at full coverage but earns only the baseline.
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 ('Permanently delete an AI agent') and implicitly distinguishes itself from siblings like agents_trigger_delete and agents_update by noting the cascade to triggers. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.
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 on when to prefer this over alternatives such as agents_update or agents_trigger_delete, and no prerequisites or required permissions stated. The warning implies caution but not selection criteria.
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.