delete_agent_tool

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is structured data. The description adds the scope exclusion (MCP tools unaffected) and reinforces irreversibility with "Permanently," but says nothing about cascade effects on agents that reference the tool or any auth requirement — comparable to the calibration case where a scoping constraint under annotations earned a 3.

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, zero filler; the destructive action and its scope are front-loaded and the exclusion is the natural second beat.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition covers what the tool does, what it targets, and what it excludes. The remaining hole — side effects on agents referencing the deleted tool — is the only thing an agent might reasonably want before calling.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it only tells us toolId identifies the agent HTTP tool. It gives no format detail (UUID vs slug vs name) or validation behavior, which is the one gap an agent could hit at call time; for a single obvious required parameter this is adequate but not compensating.

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 ("Permanently delete a Convocore agent HTTP tool") plus the identifying key (toolId), and draws a boundary ("Does not delete MCP tools") that separates it from MCP-related deletion surfaces. It never names the closest siblings (get_agent_tool, update_agent_tool, create_agent_tool), but the HTTP-vs-MCP distinction is enough to select correctly.

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 negative case is implied via "Does not delete MCP tools," which signals when not to use it. There is no positive when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite or permission note, and no pointer to the alternative tool for MCP deletion, so the agent must infer the rest.

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