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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this well by naming the destructive consequences and explicitly warning that the operation is irreversible. It does not cover permissions or accepted-deal behavior, but it is stronger than most mutation-tool descriptions.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence where every clause adds a distinct behavioral fact. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the central operational consequences and the safety-critical irreversibility. It does not clarify behavior around accepted or ongoing deals or mention the response shape, so it is not fully exhaustive, but it is nearly complete.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage, so the description does not need to restate parameter details. It does add meaning by explaining that deletion is irreversible, which helps justify the required confirm=true flag, but it adds no further parameter-level guidance.

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 opens with a specific action ('Delete your agent') and enumerates the full scope: cancelling open intents, withdrawing open bids, anonymising the profile, and invalidating the key. This clearly distinguishes it from narrower siblings like cancel_intent or withdraw_bid.

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 description makes clear this is the tool for full agent deletion, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over fine-grained alternatives or mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is implied through the listed side effects rather than stated directly.

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