delete_agent

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

No annotations provided, so description fully informs: it's destructive but soft-deleted, recoverable via restore_agent, and details error handling for 409 (stale version vs. reference conflict).

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 sentences, no redundancy, front-loaded with key action and recoverability, then parameter guidance and error resolution. Every sentence earns its place.

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 it's a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers recovery, error types, and parameter usage comprehensively, making it fully actionable.

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%, but description adds meaning: 'confirm' parameter acknowledges destructiveness, 'expectedVersion' is tied to version checking and 409 rejection, and advises reading the agent first for its version.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'agent'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'restore_agent' and 'list_deleted_agents' by noting the soft-delete behavior.

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 explicit guidance: it's destructive but recoverable, mentions restore_agent as alternative, explains when to retry on 409 (stale version) vs. when not (reference conflict), and advises to read first for version.

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