delete_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses that deleting a teammate entry discards its conversation, and if a live run exists, the run's record is discarded and the background task dies unrecorded. It also explicitly states there is no guard against the teammate namespace, providing full behavioral context.

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 concise but packed with useful information. It starts with the core action and then explains implications. While each sentence adds value, there is slight redundancy in explaining the teammate dismissal concept across sentences; still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the complexity of the tool (deletion with cascading effects on teammates and runs), the description is complete. It covers the main action, the side effects on conversations and runs, and the behavioral contrast with sibling tools. An output schema is indicated, so return values are not needed in the description.

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?

The input schema already provides a detailed description of agent_key with pattern, examples, and meaning. The description adds minimal additional value beyond restating that it is the key for the pooled entry. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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 explicitly states the tool removes a pooled entry stored under agent_key, and further clarifies it's the legitimate dismissal path for a teammate. The verb 'Remove' and the resource 'pooled entry' make the purpose unambiguous, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like create_agent or run_agent.

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 provides clear guidance on when to use this tool (dismissing a teammate), what happens as a result (discards standing conversation, next run recreates fresh), and contrasts with create_agent/run_agent to highlight that dismissal is intentional deletion, not accidental bypass. This helps the agent choose the correct tool.

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