delete_agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key traits: it performs a 'soft delete' (implying reversible mutation rather than permanent destruction) and affects both the agent account and all listings. It also notes restorability via 'restore_agent.' However, it lacks details on permissions required, side effects (e.g., impact on deals or messages), or error conditions.

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 two concise sentences that are front-loaded with the core action ('Soft delete your agent account and all listings') and follow with important behavioral context ('Can be restored later'). Every word earns its place, with no wasted text or ambiguity.

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's complexity (a mutation with significant impact) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the action, scope, and reversibility, but could improve by addressing permissions, confirmation prompts, or return values. It is adequate for a 0-parameter tool but leaves some behavioral gaps.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly avoids redundant information, though it does not add semantic value beyond the schema.

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 specific action ('Soft delete') and the target resource ('your agent account and all listings'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'delete_listing' (which targets only listings) and 'restore_agent' (which reverses this operation). It provides a precise verb+resource combination that is not tautological.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'Can be restored later,' which suggests this tool should be used when temporary removal is needed rather than permanent deletion. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'delete_listing' (for individual listings) or 'update_agent' (for modifications without deletion), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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