Delete Lyzr Agent

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

Annotations already signal that this is a destructive, non-read-only operation. The description adds the word 'permanently,' reinforcing irreversibility. It does not disclose potential side effects like whether associated sessions or knowledge bases are also deleted, or what happens if the agent does not exist. Given the annotations cover the core safety profile, this modest addition warrants a midpoint score.

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 a single, eight-word sentence that immediately states the action, object, and identifier. Every word is necessary, with no fluff or repetition. It is perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

As a simple, single-parameter delete tool with strong annotations (destructive, non-read-only), the description covers the essential purpose. It lacks a note about return values or consequences for dependent resources, but given the tool's low complexity and the annotations' coverage, it is sufficiently complete. A 5 would require explicit statements about side effects or response format.

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 schema already fully documents the single parameter agent_id with the description 'The agent_id to delete.' The tool description repeats this ('by its agent_id') without adding extra context such as where to obtain the agent_id (e.g., from lyzr_list_agents). Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 a specific resource ('Lyzr agent') with a clear method ('by its agent_id'). It unambiguously distinguishes this from sibling tools like lyzr_update_agent or lyzr_list_agents. The title also reinforces the action.

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 clearly implies the tool is for deleting a single Lyzr agent, and the word 'permanently' provides an important caution. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., lyzr_bulk_delete_agents for multiple agents) or exclusions (e.g., cannot delete published agents). Still, the singular 'delete_agent' name and resource scope provide clear context.

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