Delete an agent

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

Even though destructiveHint=true covers the broad safety class, the description goes further by disclosing token invalidation, loss of in-flight work, and the two-step nature of the operation. This meaningfully enriches the annotation and helps the agent understand consequences beyond 'destructive'.

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 concise: two sentences that front-load the core action, then add the most important consequence and prerequisite. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy.

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 rich input schema, output schema, and annotations, the description covers all essential operational context: what is destroyed, why caution is needed, and how to sequence the deletion. No critical behavioral gap remains for a tool of this complexity.

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 already has 100% description coverage for all three parameters, including a clear description of confirm_token as 'Token from a previous call'. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond that, so a 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 uses a strong verb ('Removes') with a specific resource ('an agent') and adds concrete scope ('invalidates its token'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like update_agent by framing the two-step relationship.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: drain the agent first with update_agent no_schedule=true, and warns that running work is lost and must be restarted. This tells the agent exactly when deletion is appropriate and what prerequisite step to take.

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