goclaw_agent_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'soft delete' which implies the agent isn't permanently removed and might be recoverable, but doesn't explain what 'soft delete' entails (e.g., marking as inactive, retention period, recovery options). It also doesn't cover permissions needed, side effects, or error conditions for this mutation operation.

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 at just four words, front-loading the key information ('Delete an agent') and adding a critical qualifier ('soft delete'). There's zero wasted language, making it easy to parse while conveying essential behavioral context.

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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'soft delete' means operationally, what the tool returns (success confirmation, error messages), or how this differs from other agent operations. The context signals show a simple parameter structure, but the behavioral aspects are under-specified for a mutation tool.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' clearly documented as 'Agent ID'. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the action ('Delete') and resource ('an agent'), and specifies it's a 'soft delete' which distinguishes it from permanent deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like goclaw_agent_files_delete or goclaw_agent_links_remove, which handle different resource types.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing the agent ID), when soft deletion is appropriate versus other operations, or what happens after deletion. Sibling tools like goclaw_agent_update or goclaw_agent_get aren't referenced for context.

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