Delete an agent

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the authorization class 'board_or_agent', which is useful beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose side effects like irreversibility or impact on associated data, which would be valuable for a destructive operation.

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 short (two sentences), but the first sentence repeats the title verbatim without adding value. The second sentence provides useful specifics (URL, auth class). It could be more efficient by starting with the operation details.

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 has 2 parameters, an output schema, and nested objects, the description is minimal. It does not explain what happens upon deletion (e.g., soft vs hard delete), what the output represents, or any prerequisites. The output schema exists but is not referenced, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 50%, and the description adds no information about parameters. The body field has a generic description, and path.id has none. The description fails to compensate for the gap, leaving the agent without guidance on required inputs.

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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'agent', and provides the HTTP method and URL. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_delete_agents_by_id_instructions_bundle_file, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 mentions the authorization class, giving context on who can use it, but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., patch vs delete). Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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