delete_agent

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it flags IRREVERSIBLE destruction, instructs the agent to confirm with the user, and documents the path-safety guard ('Refuses paths that escape the agents dir'). This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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, each earning its place: scope, destruction warning, and usage context. Critical information is front-loaded with no filler or redundancy.

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 single-parameter destructive action with no annotations, the description covers what gets deleted, when to use it, and safety constraints. It only lacks an explicit pointer to list_agents or agent_index for obtaining a valid agent_id.

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 coverage is 0% and the description never explains agent_id: its format, where to find it, or whether it is a name, path, or ID. The path-safety note gives only an indirect hint, leaving the single parameter materially underspecified.

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's entire bundle (all concepts + persona + log).' This clearly explains the tool's scope and distinguishes it from the sibling wiki tools that operate on individual concepts or logs.

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?

Provides an explicit trigger: 'Use when an agent is retired or created by mistake.' It does not enumerate alternatives, but no sibling tool offers a comparable deletion operation, so the usage context is sufficient.

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