delete_agentDeletes an agent permanently by UUID from your VerifyAX workspace. This action cannot be undone and returns deletion confirmation.
Permanently deletes an agent from your VerifyAX workspace by its uuid. This cannot be undone. Returns confirmation of the deletion.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_uuid | Yes | The uuid of the agent to permanently delete. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.7Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.3.5v1.0.1v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds genuine value beyond that by warning the deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, and by noting a confirmation is returned.
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, front-loaded sentences with no filler; each adds a distinct fact (what, irreversibility, return confirmation).
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 annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the irreversibility warning and return confirmation, leaving little an agent needs missing. Minor gap: no permissions or preconditions context.
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?
Only one parameter, and schema description coverage is 100% with the uuid semantics fully documented in the schema. The description merely restates that the agent is identified by uuid, adding no syntax or format detail, so the 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 (deletes) and resource (agent) with the identifying key (uuid) and workspace scope. It is distinguishable from delete_scenario by the named resource, though it never explicitly contrasts with that sibling.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as list_agents or register_agent, and no prerequisites stated (e.g. permissions, required prior state). The agent must infer the calling context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.