delete_agent

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

The annotations already set destructiveHint=true, but the description goes far beyond by disclosing the ON DELETE SET NULL behavior, that monitors survive with history and incidents intact, become unowned, keep running, and that the agent row itself cannot be un-deleted. No contradiction with annotations.

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 long, but every sentence earns its place — no filler, each sentence adds a required fact (prerequisites, the core action, monitor survival, reattachment, deletion of monitors, irreversibility). It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and permission requirement before the detailed behavioral caveats.

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 mutation with cascading implications, the description fully covers prerequisites, side effects, reattachment workflow, how to fully remove associated monitors, and irreversibility. There is no output schema, but for a delete operation the primary missing concerns are all addressed.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter as 'Agent UUID (from register_agent or list_agents)'. The description adds no new semantic value beyond restating 'by UUID', so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly identifies the action: 'Permanently delete a LastPing agent from the registry by UUID.' It distinguishes the tool from siblings such as delete_monitor and update_agent by explicitly calling out that monitors are not deleted in this operation, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit prerequisites ('Requires an API key with the write scope or higher'), explicit exclusion ('THIS DOES NOT DELETE ITS MONITORS'), and names the exact alternatives for related operations ('call delete_monitor', 'call update_monitor'). This is model guidance for when to use and when not to use this tool.

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