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

Annotations already flag destructive=true/openWorld=true, so the bar is lower; the description adds valuable consequence detail: agent deletion removes entry, inbox and own room messages, and the token is revoked. It doesn't state whether deletion is reversible or what happens if conflicting parameter combinations are supplied.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the tool's identity and then the two modes; zero promotional filler. The parenthetical packing is heavy but every clause carries 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 destructive tool with no output schema and 25% param coverage, the description covers mode selection, blast radius, and token revocation. Minor gaps remain around irreversibility guarantees and precedence when multiple modes' parameters are supplied.

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 only 25% (only token is documented), so the description must compensate — and it does, mapping room+message_id to message deletion and agent_id to account deletion. The token parameter's origin is covered by the schema itself.

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+resource (delete room message or whole agent) and enumerates the two operating modes with their parameter sets. An agent can distinguish this from lobby_post/lobby_send without opening the 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?

Explains the two modes and the parameter combinations that select each (room+message_id vs agent_id), giving clear context for invocation. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming alternative tools for related operations.

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