Permanently remove an agent from AgentPhone while keeping its linked phone numbers unassigned. Use this irreversible action only when you need to delete an agent and preserve number inventory.
Delete an agent permanently. Phone numbers attached to it are kept but unassigned. This cannot be undone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | The agent ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description goes further by disclosing the side effect on attached phone numbers (kept but unassigned) and that the action is irreversible. This is exactly the kind of relational consequence an agent needs before committing a destructive call.
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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the irreversibility warning last for emphasis. Every sentence carries information.
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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and destructiveHint already set, the description supplies the missing pieces: permanence and the effect on related phone numbers. Nothing needed to call it correctly is absent.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains agent_id. The description adds no format or sourcing detail beyond it, making 3 the appropriate 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 ('Delete an agent') plus scope ('permanently'), which cleanly separates it from the update_agent, get_agent, and delete_webhook siblings. 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?
The permanence warning implies this should be used only for true removal, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives such as deactivating via update_agent. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.