Delete a Wiro agent

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

Annotations already flag destructive/idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds materially: irreversibility, data removal deferred, no restore path, no refund for the remaining billing period, and a two-phase confirm gate. The explicit admin-or-deployer authorization requirement is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and the irreversibility warning, then sequencing, then the confirm gate, then permissions — a sensible order. Slightly redundant with the schema's confirm description, but every sentence is substantive.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema (so return values need no explanation), the description covers danger, preconditions, ordering, and authorization. Nothing an agent needs before calling is missing.

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%, so baseline is 3; the description goes beyond by explaining the operational meaning of confirm (check-and-describe vs actual deletion, only after user agreement) and by anchoring agent_guid to the list_my_agents source. It mostly restates the schema's confirm text, which caps it below 5.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a deployed agent") and immediately scopes it to the deployed agent, which separates it from delete_agent_session and delete_workflow in the sibling list. An agent can pick this tool without opening the schema.

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 ordered procedure (manage_agent_billing, then control_agent, then delete), names the sibling tools to use first, and states the confirm=true precondition plus the dry-run default. It also states the permission condition for team agents, so when-to-use and prerequisites are both covered.

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