delete_agent_version

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the action is permanent but recoverable until purged, and that certain versions are protected. This covers key behavioral traits for a destructive operation. Missing details like permissions or error handling, but acceptable.

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 two sentences: first states purpose and scope, second adds recovery context and exceptions. No wasted words, front-loaded with key 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?

Given no output schema, the description explains what the tool does and its constraints. It covers protected versions and recovery path. However, it does not specify return value or error cases, slightly incomplete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It focuses on overall behavior rather than parameter specifics.

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 'Permanently remove one entry from a agent's version history', specifying the verb 'remove' and the resource 'agent version history'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting protected versions and mentioning recovery via 'restore_deleted_agent_version'.

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 explicitly states that the working draft and published version are protected and cannot be targeted, providing a clear when-not scenario. It mentions recoverability with 'restore_deleted_agent_version', giving an alternative. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other version-related tools, but the context is sufficient.

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