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

With annotations already declaring destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, the description adds meaningful context beyond them: 'Earlier answers are kept' clarifies the data retention on destruction, and 'nothing more is recorded' clarifies termination of activity. This is valuable behavioral detail, though it doesn't cover reversibility or auth implications.

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 action and its temporal constraint, with zero wasted words. It is optimally sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 zero-required-param destructive tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the key behavioral facts: immediate termination and data retention. It lacks auth requirements and reversibility, but is otherwise complete enough to call correctly.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents agent_key including the omit-when-in-header fallback. The description adds no parameter detail, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 uses a clear imperative ('Stop this identity now') that conveys terminating the identity's activity, distinct from siblings like release_run or rotate_key. It's clear but doesn't explicitly name the resource 'network' as the tool name implies, leaving a slight gap between name and description.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The description doesn't explain when to call this versus release_run or when an agent should exit the network. It states the effect but not the selection context.

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