cs_agent_destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'is destructive' and 'releases the managed lifecycle'. It adds a little context about post-completion usage, but it does not disclose additional behaviors such as irreversibility beyond the hint, potential permission requirements, or what happens to associated resources. Since annotations carry the safety burden, the description only marginally adds value, matching the baseline.

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, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every phrase earns its place. The second sentence reinforces the destructive nature without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has 3 parameters (all documented in schema), destructive annotations, and no output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use it. It could mention the consequence of using cascade=false when descendants exist, but the schema already covers that. The description is complete enough for a destructive lifecycle operation.

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 parameter schema has 100% description coverage, explicitly explaining agentId, cascade, and discardSession. The description paraphrases these as 'cascading through descendants' and 'discarding its session' but does not add new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. With the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage, this 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 clearly states the action: 'Destroy a managed agent after its work is complete or abandoned'. It identifies the resource (managed agent) and the specific verb (destroy), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like cs_agent_cancel by indicating this is a final lifecycle action, not just a run-level cancellation.

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 gives explicit timing context: 'after its work is complete or abandoned'. This implies the tool should be used at the end of an agent's lifecycle, not while it is actively being used. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like cs_agent_cancel for stopping in-flight work, so it lacks the full when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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