delete_agent

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

The description explicitly states the operation is permanent and irreversible. Without annotations, this adequately discloses the destructive nature. No contradiction.

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 concise lines plus an Args section. Every sentence adds value: action, HTTP method, irreversibility, and parameter format. 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 simple deletion tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior (permanence) and parameter. It doesn't specify response details, but the output schema handles that. Adequate.

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 description adds an example format 'bc-...' for agent_id, which is helpful beyond the schema that only has type and title. With 0% schema coverage, this provides useful guidance.

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 'Permanently delete an agent' with the HTTP method and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by implying this is the destructive deletion, as opposed to archive_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 notes irreversibility, which guides against accidental use. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this over archive_agent, which is a sibling for reversible removal.

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