Terminate an agent

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description minimally adds the authorization class ('board_or_agent'). It does not elaborate on side effects (e.g., irreversible termination, impact on ongoing tasks) or rate limits, which are critical 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 very short (two sentences), front-loading the core action. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it gains conciseness at the expense of substance, which limits its value.

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 action with annotations, the description lacks needed context: irreversibility, required permissions (beyond auth class), state dependencies, and return value. An output schema exists but no mention of what the response contains, leaving the user 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?

The input schema has 50% coverage (path.id is described, body is undocumented). The description adds no parameter details—it doesn't explain the required 'id' field or the purpose of the optional body. The schema itself is minimal, and the description fails to compensate.

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 tool terminates an agent and references the specific HTTP method and resource. It is straightforward but does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_post_agents_by_id_pause or pc_delete_agents_by_id, which have distinct effects.

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 provides no guidance on when to use termination over pausing, resuming, or deleting an agent. It lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., agent must be running) or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit direction.

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