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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: irreversibility, the full scope of data deletion (projects, goals, evidence, history), and the two-step safeguard mechanism (first call triggers warning/challenge, second call requires confirmations). This substantially enhances the agent's understanding of the tool's behavior and risks.

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 description is three concise sentences, front-loaded with the most critical warning about irreversibility and data scope, followed by the two-step process and a caution. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given that the tool is destructive, has no output schema, and has 5 optional parameters, the description adequately covers irreversibility, data scope, the safeguard sequence, and the requirement for explicit user request. It does not spell out the exact content of the challenge/warning, but the schema descriptions for parameters like reasoning_answer and confirm_passphrase partially fill that gap. The description is complete enough for safe and correct invocation.

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 schema already provides 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining that parameters are intended for the second call and that reasoning_answer and confirm_passphrase originate from the first call's challenge. This clarifies the sequential usage of parameters beyond their individual schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Irreversibly delete your account and ALL data (projects, goals, evidence, history).' It uses a specific verb (delete), identifies the resource (account plus all associated data), and distinguishes this from sibling tools like goal-delete and project-delete, which target individual entities.

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 explicitly says 'Do NOT call without explicit user request', providing a clear when-not-to-use rule. It also describes the two-step process (call without arguments first to get a warning/challenge, then call again with confirmations), which gives strong context for how to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools for less destructive operations, so it misses the 'alternatives' criterion by a narrow margin.

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