delete-agent

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden and does well: it flags destructive, irreversible behavior and the exact HTTP call, which is the critical safety information. It omits secondary effects (what happens to the agent's files, chats, or whether the call requires elevated permissions), leaving a modest gap.

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 short sentences: what it does, how it maps to the API, and the safety warning. The destructive-risk warning is placed last for emphasis with zero filler.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers identity, endpoint, and irreversibility well. The only missing pieces are post-delete side effects and the response shape, which is minor since no output schema exists.

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 100% and the `agent_id` property already documents that it is an agent UUID from `list-agents`. The description only restates that the UUID is placed in the URL path, adding no new format or constraint detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Permanently delete an AI agent") and pins the exact backend operation (`syntx.agents.delete`, `DELETE /api/v1/agents/{agent_id}`). This is clearly separable from siblings like `delete-agent-files`, `update-agent`, and `get-agent`.

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?

Gives an explicit operational precondition — "confirm before invoking" — which tells the agent this must not be fired off autonomously. It does not name alternatives (e.g. `update-agent` or `delete-agent-files` for narrower cleanup), so it stops short of full when/when-not routing.

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