delete_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Safely terminates and removes an agent from its session,' which implies a destructive operation with some safety measures, but it does not detail permissions required, irreversible consequences, error conditions, or what happens to associated resources. The force parameter behavior is noted, but overall behavioral context is incomplete.

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 purpose, followed by behavioral and parameter details in two concise sentences. Every sentence adds value: the first states the action, the second describes safety and the force parameter. There is no wasted text, and the structure is efficient.

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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and force parameter usage but lacks details on permissions, error handling, return values, and full parameter semantics. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a deletion tool.

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 must compensate. It explains the purpose of the force parameter ('to forcefully terminate unresponsive agents'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema's boolean type. However, it does not clarify the agent_name parameter's format or constraints. The description partially compensates but leaves one parameter undocumented.

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') and target resource ('an agent from the system'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like delete_session (which targets sessions) and create_agent (which creates rather than deletes). The verb+resource combination is precise and 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 provides clear context for when to use the force parameter ('to forcefully terminate unresponsive agents'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delete_session or when deletion is appropriate versus other operations. The guidance is helpful but lacks sibling differentiation and exclusion criteria.

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