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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: the cascade to followers and their activity log, the survival of the account connection, and the atomicity guarantee that a refused close means 'nothing is deleted' with a `close_failed` outcome. It stops short of saying the deletion is permanent/irreversible or what permissions are required, which keeps it off a 5.

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 destructive scope, then the non-obvious survival fact, then the conditional flag. No filler, no restatement of the title, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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 no output schema, the definition covers cascade scope, side effects on accounts, and the atomic failure path, which is most of what an agent needs before calling. The remaining gap is the absence of any statement about irreversibility or required authorization, which matters for a destructive operation.

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% and the `close_positions` schema entry already spells out both branches and the `close_failed` failure mode. The description's clause 'With `close_positions=true` every copy is closed first' restates rather than extends that, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented schema applies.

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 and resource ('Deletes the copier') and immediately scopes the blast radius: 'its followers and their activity log', plus the reassurance that 'The accounts stay connected'. That scope statement also separates it from sibling tools like remove_follower and disconnect_account without needing to name them.

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?

Usage is only implied: the cascade scope and the 'accounts stay connected' note hint that this is the whole-copier teardown rather than a single-follower removal, but no alternative tool is named and no precondition (ownership, active state) is stated. An agent can infer the right context but is not told explicitly when not to use it.

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