delete_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that deletion signs the agent out of all sessions and unassigns their open conversations, and names the required permission scope. It stops short of stating whether the deletion is irreversible, soft-delete, or what happens to historical conversation data.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then consequences, then permission requirement. The repeated title line and "Tags: Agents" boilerplate add minor noise, but the core sentences are tight and non-redundant.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, side effects, and auth needs, which is enough to call it correctly. Only the reversibility/aftermath of the deletion is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter (id), and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no further meaning about the id beyond the path template already implied by the endpoint line.

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 concrete verb and resource ("Delete Agent") plus the exact endpoint DELETE /api/v1/agents/{id}, which unambiguously separates it from siblings like update_agent, get_agent, and get_agents.

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?

Provides a prerequisite (requires the `users:manage` permission) but gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, e.g. whether a softer alternative such as update_agent or deactivating availability should be preferred before permanent deletion.

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