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

The description clearly warns that all transactions of the account are deleted in background, which is important behavioral context. However, the annotation destructiveHint: false contradicts the description's stated destructive effect, so this dimension must be scored as an annotation contradiction.

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 brief, front-loads the core action, and places the critical warning prominently. Every sentence adds meaningful information: what is deleted, the background behavior, and the exclusion for automatic accounts.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description provides important caveats. However, it does not specify how to identify the account for the parameter, and the destructiveHint annotation directly contradicts the described behavior, leaving the overall picture inconsistent.

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 0%, and the description does not explain what the required 'account' parameter should contain (ID, name, or other identifier). The word 'conta' adds no semantic information beyond the parameter name itself, so the agent is left without guidance for filling the only required field.

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 ('Exclui') and resource ('conta'), making it clear that this tool deletes an account. It is therefore distinguishable from sibling tools like organizze_delete_budget or organizze_delete_credit_card.

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?

It explicitly gives an exclusion: automatic accounts cannot be deleted, and it steers the agent to the connections menu as the alternative. A general when-to-use statement is missing, but the when-not-to-use guidance is strong.

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