AnythingLLM MCP Server

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. 'Delete' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify consequences (e.g., whether associated data is removed, if deletion is permanent, or what permissions are required). For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 three words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. While it may be too brief for completeness, it earns full marks for conciseness and structure efficiency.

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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what happens upon deletion, potential side effects, error conditions, or return values. Given the complexity and risk of deletion operations, more context is needed to make this tool description complete enough for safe use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with agentId clearly documented as 'ID of the agent to delete'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, but with full schema coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high. No additional semantic value is needed from the description.

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 'Delete an agent' clearly states the action (delete) and resource (agent), but it's quite basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like delete_api_key, delete_user, or delete_workspace. It doesn't specify what type of agent or provide any additional context about what deletion entails.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools like list_agents and update_agent exist, the description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an agent ID from list_agents) or warn against misuse. It's a bare statement with no contextual usage information.

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