Delete Agent Delegation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it explicitly discloses that onchain permissions are NOT revoked and only the MCP local artifact is removed, plus the confirm=true guard. It stops short of stating whether deletion is reversible or what a successful response looks like.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope, then the critical non-effect, then the confirmation requirement. No 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 deletion tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the highest-risk ambiguity (that this is a local-only delete). Minor gaps remain around idempotency and success/failure signaling, but nothing that would cause a wrong invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented. The description adds the confirm=true requirement but, since it matches the schema, it is baseline-level rather than additive.

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+resource ('Delete a locally stored agent delegation session') and immediately scopes it against the onchain semantics, so it is distinguishable from siblings like agent_delete_wallet or agent_list_delegations.

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 useful context about the effect (local-only, not onchain) but never states when to use this versus related tools such as agent_get_delegation or agent_delete_wallet. Usage is implied rather than routed.

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