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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining destructive behavior. It does this thoroughly by disclosing the order of operations (stops/removes projects first), the resource types affected (containers, routes, MariaDB), and the refusal behavior if orphaned runtimes would remain.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core action, then add essential behavioral details. No filler or redundancy.

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-parameter, destructive account-deletion tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: what gets deleted, the order, and the safety guarantee regarding orphaned runtimes.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is fully covered. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and no additional parameter semantics are needed.

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 (deletes), the exact resource (the caller's account), and the scope of the action. It also clearly distinguishes itself from delete_project by describing account-level deletion that first removes all projects.

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 clearly communicates the tool's purpose: delete the caller's account. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, the context is unambiguous enough for an agent to select it for account deletion rather than project-level operations.

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