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

Annotations already cover destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds material context beyond them: permanence/irreversibility and the last-admin guardrail. It stops short of stating what a successful or refused 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 destructive warning, then the guardrail. Every sentence earns its place with 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 destructive mutation with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers scope, irreversibility, and the refusal rule. It could be stronger by noting the confirm=true prerequisite, though the schema already enforces that.

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 all three parameters (userId, confirm, customerId) are already documented in the schema, including the superadmin-only customerId. The description adds only the customer-scoping constraint, 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?

Specific verb (delete) plus resource (user account) with explicit scope ('within the current customer'). Clearly separable from the many other delete_* siblings (delete_agent, delete_run, delete_webhook, delete_optimization).

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 a decisive when-not condition: it refuses to delete the last remaining admin in a customer, which tells the agent the call can fail on a business rule rather than a schema error. It doesn't name alternatives, but for a terminal delete there is no real substitute to route to.

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