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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by detailing the full blast radius: the account, posts, stats, tags, scheduled posts, and the Instagram/TikTok connection are all permanently removed. It also discloses irreversibility, the distinction from disconnecting, and the confirm-flag behavior, giving a complete picture of consequences.

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 compact but rich: it front-loads the destructive verb and scope, lists the cascade of deletions, flags non-reversibility, distinguishes from disconnecting, names the alternative, and gives a typical use case. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

This is a destructive, multi-account deletion tool with three parameters, and the description covers all decision-relevant aspects: what gets destroyed, how to distinguish from safer alternatives, when it's appropriate, and the confirmation mechanism. The schema covers parameter details, and annotations cover the destructive flag, so nothing critical is missing.

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 already fully documents all three parameters. The description adds high-level context about the accounts parameter ('org's own connected accounts') and reinforces the confirm behavior, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own detailed parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('delete'), a precise resource ('org's own connected accounts — My Accounts'), and a clear scope ('one or SEVERAL... in one call'). It also enumerates exactly what is deleted and explicitly distinguishes itself from archive_my_accounts, so an agent can unambiguously identify this tool.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('cleaning up burner accounts that got banned or checkpointed and will never come back') and names the alternative ('use archive_my_accounts instead') with the reasoning why. This gives the agent concrete decision criteria for choosing between destructive deletion and archival.

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