grokbot_delete_agent

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds real behavioral value by disclosing that without confirm=true the call is preview-only, i.e. a no-op dry run, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences with the destructive action stated first and the safety condition immediately after; nothing is wasted. Very brief, though, which limits how much it can convey.

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 two-parameter delete tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers the essential behavior (preview vs. actual delete) on top of annotations that already mark it destructive. Missing only usage context, which is a minor gap here.

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 50% – the 'confirm' field is already documented as 'Must be true to actually delete' in the schema. The description's preview-only sentence reinforces that meaning but adds no new syntax or semantics, and agent_id is undocumented in both places.

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') and clearly belongs to the delete family, distinguishable from create/update/get siblings. It does not explicitly name a sibling, but the action is unambiguous.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives; it only describes what the call does and its preview behavior. An agent must infer the context of use from the name alone.

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