delete_agentPermanently remove an agent to stop phone numbers and campaigns linked to it from working. This action is irreversible, so confirm before deleting.
Permanently delete an agent. Phone numbers and campaigns pointing at it stop working. Not reversible.
Requires scope agents:write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes well beyond the annotations. It confirms and elaborates destructiveHint=true with 'Permanently delete' and 'Not reversible,' explains downstream effects on phone numbers and campaigns, and discloses the required `agents:write` scope. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone do not provide.
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?
Three short sentences deliver the core action, consequences, and auth requirement with no filler. The warning about irreversibility is front-loaded and essential for a destructive tool.
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 single-parameter destructive delete operation, the description covers what happens, the irreversible nature, the scope requirement, and the functional impact on related resources. No output schema exists, but the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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 input schema already documents the only parameter `id` with a clear example and 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete an agent.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_agent, get_agent, and delete_lead, and the title reinforces the same resource and action without ambiguity.
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 tool's usage context is clear: use it to permanently delete an agent, with the consequence that associated phone numbers and campaigns stop working. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but for a delete-specific operation the intended use case is sufficiently evident.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.