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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and non-idempotency, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: data is deleted permanently, a preview deletes nothing, tokens last 5 minutes and are single-use, and the account itself survives. The auth requirement is also disclosed. This is exactly the behavioral burden a destructive tool's description should carry.

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?

Four compact sentences, front-loaded with what is destroyed before the mechanics. Every sentence carries needed information (scope, two-step protocol, permanence, account retention, auth) 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?

For an irreversible delete with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: preview behavior, what the preview returns, token lifetime and reuse limits, permanence, the fact the account is retained, and the sign-in requirement. Nothing material 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 the baseline is 3, and the schema already documents both parameters including the confirm/token dependency. The description adds value beyond the schema by stating the 5-minute token validity window and reinforcing the dependency, though the rest largely restates schema text.

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?

States a specific verb (deletes) and the exact resource set (every booking, statement, saved commute and claim) scoped to the person's Untap account. It also names the multi-step nature up front, so an agent immediately understands this is not a simple one-shot delete. No sibling performs account-data deletion, so it is easily distinguished.

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?

Explicitly describes the two-call protocol: confirm=false for preview, confirm=true with token to actually delete, plus token expiry and single use. It also routes elsewhere for the adjacent need ('deleting the account too is done at untap.money/data') and states the sign-in prerequisite, covering when and when-not to use it.

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