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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still earns credit by disclosing non-obvious downstream behavior: payment reconciliation hashes survive for 30 days, and both private credentials are mandatory. It does not say whether deletion is recoverable, which matters because a `restore` sibling exists.

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 sentences, zero filler. The destructive action leads, and the retention caveat follows — correct ordering for a high-stakes operation.

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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and full annotations, the description covers effects, prerequisites, and post-deletion retention. The one meaningful omission is reversibility, especially given the `restore` sibling, which would change an agent's decision calculus.

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 100% and both parameters carry detailed descriptions (including the bearer-token warning), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates that both credentials are required, adding no new format or handling detail beyond the schema.

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?

Specific verb with an enumerated blast radius: delete profile, delete guest notes, revoke all sessions. This clearly separates it from the narrower sibling `revoke_sessions` and from `leave_note`/`check_out` without needing to open any schema.

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 credential prerequisite ("Requires both private credentials") is stated, which is useful context for calling it. However, there is no explicit when-to-use framing, no statement about whether this is reversible given the `restore` sibling exists, and no warning about escalation from less severe alternatives like `check_out` or `revoke_sessions`.

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