Delete agent profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description goes well beyond them: it discloses exactly what is destroyed (profile, all versions, cron triggers), what survives (launched agents run on an immutable snapshot), and residual side effects (integration settings retain the public ID and future launches fail until re-pointed). This is precisely the context an agent needs before an irreversible call.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and cascade scope, then the retention guarantee and the integration caveat. Every sentence carries information; the final sentence is slightly dense but earns its place by warning about broken future launches.

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 no-output-schema delete tool, the description is complete: it covers the deletion scope, the survival semantics for dependent agents, and the downstream failure mode. Nothing an agent needs in order to invoke this correctly is missing, and the annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining the three IDs, and it does not discuss them at all. The parameter names (orgID, projectID, agentProfileID) plus their regex patterns are largely self-explanatory, so the gap is mild, but no format or scoping meaning is added 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Deletes the profile') and immediately delimits scope by enumerating the cascade: profile versions and cron triggers. This distinguishes it cleanly from siblings like profiles_update, profiles_rename, and profiles_create, which mutate or create rather than destroy.

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 conveys the destructive extent, which implicitly helps an agent decide whether this is the right call versus a lighter tool like profiles_rename or agents_archive, but it never explicitly says when to use this over alternatives or names any sibling. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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