delete_agent

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

Annotations already signal mutation and destructiveness, and the description adds the valuable nuance that the delete is soft and reversible ('soft delete', 'pode ser restaurado depois'). It does not detail effects on related resources or whether deletion is idempotent, but the core behavior is disclosed beyond the annotated flags.

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?

Two short sentences carry the operation, its soft-delete nature, and reversibility with no filler. Every sentence adds information, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, schema-covered operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential safety-relevant detail: it is reversible. It could mention what happens to the archived agent's active sessions or visibility, but nothing critical is missing for a simple soft-delete call.

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 sole parameter is fully documented in the schema ('UUID do agente a arquivar'), so the description does not need to provide parameter meaning. The description adds no extra semantic detail about the parameter beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Arquiva') and resource ('um agente'), and immediately clarifies that this is a soft delete, distinguishing it from a destructive removal. The added note that the agent can be restored later sharpens the meaning of the operation.

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 restorability note implies this tool is the choice when an agent must be removed but kept recoverable, which is a usable usage cue. However, the description does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving the when-to-use guidance mostly implicit.

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