delete_bot

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does say 'Permanently', which correctly signals irreversibility, but it omits whether auth/ownership is required, whether related data is deleted, and whether the operation is idempotent or fails on missing IDs. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is thin.

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?

One compact sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the irreversible nature of the operation. No filler or redundant 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?

For a destructive operation with no annotations, no output schema, and no guidance on preconditions or side effects, the definition is incomplete. It answers what the tool does but leaves the agent without the context needed to call it safely.

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 single agentId parameter is fully documented in the schema itself. The description repeats the 'by its agent ID' idea but adds no syntax, format, or sourcing guidance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Permanently delete') and resource ('Grok Bot agent') plus the identifier used to target it. It's clear against siblings like create_bot and list_bots, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative. The output would be stronger if it clarified irreversibility vs a soft-delete sibling, but there is no such sibling here.

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 only says what the tool does, not when to use it. There is no condition for choosing delete_bot over other bot operations, no prerequisite (e.g., ownership or confirmation), and no warning about when not to use it. With a destructive delete, the absence of usage guidance is a notable gap.

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