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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing what is destroyed (terminal plus stored history) and the exact error code returned on refusal. It stops short of stating whether the terminal shutdown is graceful or whether deletion is recoverable.

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 sentences, both load-bearing: the first front-loads the destructive effect, the second front-loads the blocking condition and its remedy. No restating of the title and 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 one-parameter destructive tool with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers the two things an agent most needs: what gets destroyed and how the call fails. The only gap is the success response shape, which is not documented anywhere since no output schema exists.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `account_id` fully. The description adds no format, sourcing or validation detail beyond it, which is the baseline case for a fully documented single param.

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?

Uses specific verbs (stops, deletes) on a specific resource (the account) and names the collateral scope (its terminal and stored history). An agent can distinguish this from get_account/list_accounts and from the copier/follower mutators without opening any 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?

Supplies an explicit when-not condition: an account in use by a copier is refused with `account_in_use`. It then names the alternatives that unblock the call (delete the copier or remove the follower), pointing at the sibling tools delete_copier and remove_follower.

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