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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral context: the action is irreversible, it deletes ALL data categories, and it enforces a mandatory two-step challenge/confirmation barrier. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and sets correct expectations for an agent.

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 dense, purposeful sentences: the first fronts the irreversible destructive scope, the second explains the two-step invocation protocol and the user-consent guardrail. No wasted words.

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, multi-step account deletion tool, the description covers the essential invocation sequence, irreversibility, data scope, and consent requirement. It does not detail what the challenge/riddle looks like or the exact response format, but the schema covers parameter meanings and no output schema is expected. Minor gap: it could state what happens after the second call, but overall sufficient.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all five parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about the two-step invocation flow but does not add meaning beyond the schema for individual parameters.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: irreversibly delete the user's account and all associated data (projects, goals, evidence, history). It clearly distinguishes this account-level destructive action from sibling goal-delete and project-delete tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use and how-to-use guidance: invoke without arguments first to receive a warning and challenge, then invoke a second time with confirmations. It also warns not to call without an explicit user request, which is critical for a destructive account-level operation.

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