delete_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It transparently states the soft-delete behavior, that the agent becomes inactive, and that it can be recovered. It could add more detail about side effects or return values, but the core behavioral traits are well covered.

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 two sentences with no unnecessary wording. It front-loads the core action ('Archive (soft-delete)') and immediately follows with the outcome and recoverability, making every word valuable.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what happens, why it is useful, and that it is reversible. It lacks explicit mention of response behavior, but that is a minor gap for this simple 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 100%, so the schema already documents 'agent_id' adequately. The description adds 'by its ID' but does not provide further semantic detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Archive (soft-delete)') and resource ('agent by its ID'), clearly stating the operation's nature. It also distinguishes itself from create/update siblings by emphasizing the deletion/deactivation aspect and the recoverable soft-delete behavior.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: when an agent should no longer be active but may need recovery later. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling offers a delete/archive operation, so the usage context is reasonably clear.

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