agent_studio_delete_agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. However, the description adds zero behavioral context – it does not mention that the deletion is permanent, whether any related resources are affected, or if any confirmation is needed. Since the description provides no added value beyond the annotations, it fails to enhance transparency.

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 a short two-word phrase, which is concise and avoids fluff. However, it is not a well-structured sentence and provides no meaningful structure to guide the agent. It is appropriately brief but under-specified, so it earns a middle score – not wasteful, but not adequately informative.

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 tool with three parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what an 'agent' is in this context, how to identify one (agentId), or any side effects of deletion. The absence of any contextual guidance makes it nearly impossible for an agent to use this tool correctly without external knowledge.

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 input schema only describes locationId (defaults to GHL_LOCATION_ID), while agentId and source have no descriptions. The description 'Delete Agent' does not clarify what agentId refers to, how to obtain it, or the role of source. With schema coverage at only 33%, the description needed to compensate but instead adds nothing, leaving the most critical parameter (agentId) undefined.

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 'Delete Agent' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'agent_studio_delete_agent' – it adds no new information about the resource or scope. It states the verb and resource but does not distinguish from other agent_studio tools beyond the obvious deletion action, making it a tautology rather than a clarifying statement.

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 gives no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about agent deletion workflows. There is no mention of required permissions, related operations like agent creation or execution, or scenarios where deletion should be avoided. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the tool name.

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