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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, but the description adds what the agent cannot infer: exactly what is destroyed (GitHub sign-in link and all saved stacks), that it is irreversible ("This cannot be undone"), and that authentication is required ("Needs sign-in").

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 tight sentences with the destructive action and its scope front-loaded, followed by the irreversibility warning, then the call conditions. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the remaining agent-critical facts for a destructive single-parameter tool: scope of deletion, irreversibility, auth requirement, and confirmation-phrase handling.

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 0%, but there is only one enum-constrained parameter whose allowed value is already visible in the schema. The description still adds the operational meaning of that parameter — it acts as a consent guard that must be passed "exactly" as the enum string — rather than merely repeating the literal.

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 ("Permanently delete the signed-in user's Kong Reviews account") and immediately scopes it to "their GitHub sign-in link and every saved stack", which distinguishes it from the sibling delete_saved_stack that removes a single stack.

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 gating condition ("Only call it when the user explicitly asks to delete their account") plus a prerequisite conversational step ("after telling them what will be removed"). The scope wording also implicitly routes single-stack deletion to the sibling tool.

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