Permanently delete an agent and return its remaining balance to the operator. Requires operator key and confirmation.
Permanently delete an agent. Remaining balance is returned to operator. REQUIRES OPERATOR KEY.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | Must be true to confirm deletion | |
| agent_id | Yes | Agent ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.9Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the action is permanent, that remaining balance is returned, and that an operator key is required. However, it does not mention other side effects, such as whether the agent ID becomes reusable or what happens to related resources, missing some transparency.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences that cover purpose, side effect, and requirement. No unnecessary words.
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's destructive nature and lack of annotations or output schema, the description provides essential context: permanence, balance return, and authorization. It could elaborate on irreversibility and effects on other agent configurations, but it is still fairly complete.
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% parameter description coverage, with 'agent_id' and 'confirm' already described. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline.
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 'Permanently delete an agent' which is a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'permanently' distinguishes it from deactivation tools like deactivate_agent or reactivate_agent. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for temporary disabling.
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 mentions the operator key requirement, which is a usage prerequisite, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deactivate_agent) or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.