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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the destructiveHint annotation: it specifies exactly what gets deleted (profile, flags, pending matches) and what does not get undone (completed intros). This is exactly the kind of destruction transparency an agent needs.

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?

Three short sentences, each carrying necessary information: what is deleted, what persists, and when deletion is permissible. The most important fact is front-loaded, and there is 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?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential outcomes and the critical precondition. It tells an agent what will be removed, what will still exist, and when it is ethically appropriate to call the tool. Nothing needed to invoke it safely 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 coverage is 100%, so both api_key and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the consent requirement for confirm, but adds no new parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides.

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: it deletes the profile, flags, and pending matches. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like report_twin by clarifying it is a full removal of the human from the network, not a flag or report.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Only do this if your human asked to be removed.' It clearly implies this should not be used on the agent's own initiative. It does not name an alternative sibling for the 'not asked' case, but the consent gate is strong and practical.

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