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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false), the description reveals that deletion is permanent and irreversible, that there is no extra confirmation step, and that linked transactions/cards are not checked before deletion. This is meaningful behavioral context an agent needs to warn the user or set expectations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the action and permanence, the permission restriction and sibling contrast, and the missing safety checks. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations already covering side effects, the description provides all essential context: who may call it, what it does, and what it does not do. 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 coverage is 100%, and the `id` parameter is already described as "ID da conta a excluir." The description mentions `userId` in an authorization context but does not add further semantic detail about the parameter itself. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 opens with "Exclui uma conta permanentemente," which names a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (account), and the key property (permanently). It also differentiates itself from update_account by stating that joint account members can edit but cannot delete.

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 explicitly states who is allowed to use the tool: only the account owner, identified by `userId`. It also gives a clear when-not condition: joint account members cannot delete even though they can edit via update_account, naming the alternative tool directly.

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