Delete an agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: the 403 refusal for Orchestra-managed agents and the credential-type restriction (OAuth only, API key refused). It stops short of saying whether deletion is permanent or what happens to dependent sessions/skills.

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?

Two sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and scope before the refusal conditions. Every clause carries an actionable constraint.

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 destructive, non-returning tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, refusal conditions, and auth requirements. The main gap is the absence of any statement about permanence or downstream effects, which matters for an irreversible delete.

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 both agent_id and X-Orchestra-Account-Id are fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing about parameter formatting or account-id semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Delete an agent') plus the scope the credential resolves to, which distinguishes it from the many other delete_* siblings. An agent can tell immediately what the call removes and from where.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions: Orchestra-managed agents are refused with 403, and the call only runs for an OAuth session while an Orchestra API key is refused. It does not name an alternative tool or a when-not-to-use-this-instead-of-X case, but the eligibility rules are explicit enough to route correctly.

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