retell_delete_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the permanent, destructive nature of the operation ('permanently delete'), which is critical. However, it does not mention side effects, whether associated objects are removed, or error behavior if the agent does not exist.

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 a single concise sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, resource, permanence, and required identifier.

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 simple unary delete tool, the description is complete enough: it states what it does and the permanence. It lacks return value or error details, but given the tool's simplicity and poor output schema absence, this is acceptable.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, agent_id, with a clear description. The tool description adds only 'by its ID', which is redundant with the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 uses a specific verb 'delete' and resource 'Retell AI agent' with the scope 'by its ID', making it distinct from sibling delete tools targeting other resources (e.g., retell_delete_call, retell_delete_llm). Fully clear.

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 when to use the tool (when you need to permanently delete an agent), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. It lacks guidance such as 'use retell_update_agent to modify instead' or 'use retell_get_agent to verify before deletion'.

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