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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds important behavioral context beyond those hints: irreversibility, immediate access-token revocation, and stopped listening streams. It also identifies the privileged customer that must be excluded, which is not captured in annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers consequences and safety constraints. Every sentence earns its place: deletion, seat freeing, token revocation, stream impact, confirmation, and the server-provisioned exclusion. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

The tool has rich annotations, a complete input schema, and an output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. It covers the critical behavioral details an agent needs: irreversibility, token revocation, stream stopping, confirmation, and the self-provisioned customer exclusion. This is complete for a destructive single-parameter tool.

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 100%, and the schema itself clarifies that customer_id is a Mubert customer id, not a custom_id. The description does not add any further parameter meaning or formatting details. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the parameter documentation.

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: delete a customer and free its seat. It also distinguishes the action from siblings like list_customers and provision_customer by making the destructive consequence explicit. An agent can understand the tool's core purpose 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance via confirmation, and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion: never call it on the server-provisioned customer. These are concrete operational constraints that go beyond generic advice. No alternative delete tool exists among the siblings, so the guidance is complete for this tool's role.

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