Delete an agent

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole burden. It does disclose the two most important traits for a destructive tool: the deletion is permanent/irreversible and confirm: true is mandatory. It omits permission requirements and side effects on related components (flows, connections).

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 clauses, front-loaded with the command and immediately followed by the destructive qualifier and prerequisite. No wasted words, though it is sparse enough that it reads more like a stub than a polished instruction.

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 essentials (permanence, confirm gate) are present, but nothing explains the dry-run return value, required auth/role, or the blast radius of the deletion. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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% and already documents bot, confirm (including the dry-run behavior) and environment. The description only restates the confirm requirement, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('permanently delete an agent') plus the underlying CLI command, so the purpose is unambiguous. It does not differentiate from adjacent siblings like cs_quarantine_agent (reversible disable) or cs_delete_flow, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Requires confirm: true' is a useful operational prerequisite, implying this is not a default action. However there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when NOT to delete (e.g. quarantine instead), and no mention of alternatives.

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