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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does state that deletion is permanent ('définitivement'), which is crucial behavioral context. However, it omits other important details: authentication requirements (auth_token is required but not described), irreversibility warnings beyond 'permanent', and whether any cleanup or cascade occurs. The confirm parameter's role is mentioned but not elaborated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a critical requirement. No unnecessary words; every sentence adds value.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should be richer. It covers the permanence and the confirm flag but omits authentication context (auth_token is required but unexplained) and any consequences like data loss or account recovery. It is minimally adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer correct behavior.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions confirm=true, which helps clarify the intent of the 'confirm' parameter (a safety gate), but gives no guidance on auth_token or the exact effect of confirm. The baseline for 0% coverage is low, and the description only partially compensates by naming one parameter without full semantics.

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: 'Supprime définitivement le compte de l'utilisateur authentifié' (Permanently deletes the authenticated user's account). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like mcp_delete_actfile or mcp_delete_community, and the scope is unambiguous.

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?

Mentions that confirm=true is required, which implicitly tells the agent when it can be invoked. However, it does not explain when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., account deactivation is not an option in siblings, but no context is given). The requirement is a condition rather than full usage guidance.

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