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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds useful specifics beyond the annotations: system agents are rejected with a clear message, unknown/already-deleted ids return NOT_FOUND, and there is a tier restriction (sp500+). No contradiction with the annotations.

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?

Three dense, purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the constraints (system agents, idempotency, tier) are each given in compact, scannable clauses.

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?

The description is complete for a simple single-parameter deletion operation: it covers ownership, system-agent restrictions, idempotent behavior, tier gating, and where to find the is_system flag. An output schema exists, so return details are not required here.

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% and the only parameter, agent_id, already has a clear description. The tool description reinforces 'by id' and mentions how to find agents, but does not add substantially new meaning about the parameter's format or allowed values beyond 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 action ('Delete one of the caller's own standing agents by id') with a clear resource and ownership scope. It also distinguishes itself from related deletion tools by noting system agents cannot be deleted and directing users to get_agent/list_agents for the is_system flag.

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?

Provides clear context for when the tool applies (deleting a caller's own standing agent) and an explicit when-not (system agents are rejected). It does not name an alternative tool for similar actions, but the scope and rejection rule give enough routing guidance.

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