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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the mutation is flagged; the description adds the non-obvious server-side guard (refusal while branches pay into the account), which an agent could not infer from the schema. It stops short of saying whether deletion is reversible or what happens to existing payment history.

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 tight sentences with no filler; the operation is stated first and the blocking precondition plus remedy follows immediately. Every clause carries actionable 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 description covers the operation, the guard condition, and the alternative tool. The remaining gap is post-destruction behavior (irreversibility, effect on historical payments), which would matter for a destructive 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?

Schema coverage is 50%: 'brand' is documented in the schema with a pointer to get_overview brands[].slug, while 'id' has no schema description. The description only echoes 'by its id' without clarifying where the id comes from, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 ('Remove one extra payment account by its id'), and the word 'extra' scopes it away from the primary account, implicitly distinguishing it from save_payment_account and remove_branch. It does not name a sibling tool directly, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-not condition ('Refused while any branch still pays into it') plus the concrete remedy and tool to use instead ('move those branches first with save_branch'). This is a complete routing instruction, not an implied one.

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