[neurogenesis — developmental agents: genome -> evaluation-driven growth with safety axioms + audit ledger] Remove a developmental agent from this mount.
[neurogenesis — developmental agents: genome -> evaluation-driven growth with safety axioms + audit ledger] Remove a developmental agent from this mount.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | Yes | ||
| request_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.13Input schema / properties / request_idAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "title": "Request Id"
+}v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a destructive operation. It does not state whether deletion is permanent or reversible, whether it cascades (e.g., to the agent's evaluation history or ledger entries), or what authorization is required.
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 operational sentence is short and front-loaded, but the bracketed namespace tagline is padding that consumes the start of the description without conveying tool-specific information.
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?
A destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage; the description should at minimum flag permanence and required permissions. As written it leaves an agent guessing about the consequences of the call.
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 0% with two parameters, so the description must compensate, but it explains neither agent_id nor the optional request_id (e.g., how to obtain an id, or what request_id is for idempotency/tracing). Nothing is added beyond the raw schema field names.
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?
Clear verb (Remove) + specific resource (a developmental agent), and 'from this mount' narrows scope. The bracket tagline distinguishes this as the neurogenesis domain tool and it reads distinctly from siblings like create_agent/get_agent/list_agents, though it does not name them.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no conditions or prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives (create_agent, get_agent, list_agents). The 'from this mount' phrase hints at scope but gives no actionable routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.