BotUyo MCP Server

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: the action is a 'soft delete' (deactivation and hiding), 'IRREVERSIBLE', requires confirmation parameters, and has role-based access control. This covers safety, permissions, and procedural constraints without contradictions.

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 front-loaded with the core action ('Delete an agent (soft delete)'), followed by critical warnings and requirements in a structured manner. Every sentence serves a purpose: stating the action, emphasizing irreversibility, detailing confirmation steps, and specifying role requirements, with no wasted words.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers purpose, behavioral traits (irreversible, soft delete), usage guidelines (confirmation, roles), and parameter context. The only minor gap is the lack of explicit mention of output or error handling, but given the context, this is sufficient for safe use.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the purpose of 'confirm' and 'confirmName' parameters in the context of safety confirmation ('You MUST set `confirm` to true AND provide the exact agent name'), which enhances understanding beyond the schema's technical descriptions. However, it doesn't detail 'agentId' beyond what the schema provides.

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 specific action ('Delete an agent') and qualifies it as 'soft delete', distinguishing it from permanent deletion. It explicitly mentions the resource ('agent') and the irreversible nature of the action, which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'update_agent' or 'get_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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool: it requires explicit confirmation with 'confirm' set to true and 'confirmName' matching the agent name. It also specifies role requirements ('owner, admin, or developer'), helping the agent decide when this tool is appropriate versus alternatives like deactivation or update tools.

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