kopern_delete_agent

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

Annotations already indicate destructive intent (destructiveHint=true). The description adds valuable context by enumerating the data that gets deleted (skills, tools, grading suites, sessions, connectors) and emphasizing permanence ('permanently'). This goes beyond the annotation's binary flag.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without any fluff. Every word contributes meaning.

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?

The description adequately covers the scope of deletion for a simple tool with one parameter. However, it does not mention the response (e.g., success confirmation) or error conditions, which would be helpful for complete understanding.

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 has 100% coverage with a clear description for agent_id ('The agent ID to delete'). The description does not add further semantics about the parameter, such as format or origin, but the schema itself is sufficient.

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 action 'permanently delete an agent' and specifies all associated data (skills, tools, grading suites, sessions, connectors). It uniquely identifies this as the deletion tool among siblings that create, update, get, or list 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?

The description implies usage for deleting agents but does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives like updating or exporting. It lacks prerequisites or side effects guidance, such as required permissions or checks before deletion.

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