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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: it names exactly what is destroyed (all addresses, uploaded proof documents, permanent supporting documents), states the action is irreversible, lists the blockers that prevent it, and discloses an authorization constraint tied to permanent supporting documents.

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?

Front-loaded with the destructive action and cascade, then blockers, then permission caveat. Dense and every sentence carries information, though the single long paragraph is somewhat run-on and could be broken up.

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, non-idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers side effects, irreversibility, precondition blockers, permission requirements, and the success return ('confirmation message'), leaving nothing material for the agent to infer.

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 identity_id and confirmation_token are already fully documented, including the two-phase confirmation flow. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 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 (delete) and resource (regulation identity by id) and enumerates the cascade of dependent resources destroyed with it. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like delete_did, delete_address and delete_proof.

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 explicit when-not conditions: deletion is blocked while the identity is linked to DIDs, has New/Pending address verifications, unfinished emergency calling services or SMS campaigns, or is the system identity. It also names a permission prerequisite (regulation rule vs porting_manage). It does not, however, point to any alternative tool for the blocked cases, only that the error names the blocker.

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