delete_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses refusal conditions (active tasks, last active agent), but omits other key traits such as whether deletion is reversible, what permissions/auth are required, and what happens to the agent's existing tasks.

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 short sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the caveat second. Every clause earns its place.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential failure modes but leaves notable gaps: irreversibility, permission requirements, and post-deletion side effects are unstated.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole parameter agent_id is documented in the schema as 'Agent ID to delete'. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb (Delete) and resource (agent), making the operation unambiguous. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like register_agent or set_agent_role, but the resource naming is distinct enough that no sibling collision exists.

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?

It gives a failure condition ('may refuse if the agent has active tasks or is the last active agent') which implicitly tells the agent when the call won't succeed, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., set_agent_role or release_task to retire an agent), and no prerequisites.

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