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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses immediate deactivation, session destruction, subscription cancellation, halting of scheduled work, 30-day data retention followed by permanent erasure, and separate audit retention. These are exactly the consequences an agent needs before invoking a destructive, irreversible-class operation.

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 effects are front-loaded and delivered as short, scannable clauses with no filler prose. The trailing "### Responses: 200 Successful Response / Content-Type: application/json" block is generated boilerplate that adds no value and slightly dilutes the otherwise tight structure.

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 zero-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers consequences, timing, and data lifecycle thoroughly. It stops short of stating whether a confirmation step or specific auth is required, and whether the 30-day retention window allows restoration.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It correctly implies no configuration is needed — deletion is all-or-nothing.

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 ("Delete your Iridium account") and adds scope detail — LinkedIn session destroyed at Unipile, subscription cancelled — which distinguishes it from the otherwise similar disconnect_linkedin sibling. It never names that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is implicit rather than spelled out.

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 implied by the severity of the described effects ("All scheduled work stops at once"), which signals this is a terminal action rather than a routine one. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no named alternative such as disconnect_linkedin for users who only want to unlink LinkedIn.

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