bulk_delete_agents

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

Annotations only provide a title, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: the action is 'permanent' (destructive nature) and includes a 'WARNING' about irreversibility. However, it doesn't mention authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, which could be useful additions.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by usage guidance and a critical warning. Every sentence earns its place: the first defines purpose, the second provides prerequisites, and the third highlights risks—all without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (destructive bulk operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is complete enough. It covers purpose, usage, and risks, addressing key contextual needs without over-explaining parameters or outputs.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'filter criteria (name or tags) or a specific list of IDs,' which is already implied in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Deletes multiple agents') and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'delete_agent' (singular) and 'list_agents' (read-only). It specifies the resource ('agents') and the scope ('multiple'), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Use list_agents first to identify agents to delete.' This tells the agent when to use this tool (after identification) and references a specific alternative tool for preparation, which is optimal for sibling differentiation.

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