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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description spells out exactly what is destroyed (saved session, stored sign-in, any open sign-in window), that it vanishes from /connections, and that it cannot be undone because the person must re-authenticate. It also discloses the authorization constraint (creator or workspace admin/owner), which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the selector constraint, the effects, the permission rule, and the use case in a logical order. It runs five sentences and is slightly denser than strictly necessary, but no sentence is 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 mutation with no output schema, the description covers the safety profile, authorization, side effects, irreversibility, and the motivating scenario. An agent has everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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, but the description adds real value by stating the exclusive-or requirement (EXACTLY ONE of identity_id or name) and routing legacy callers off the deprecated `identity` parameter with its name-vs-id resolution rule. The `in_workspace` override is not discussed, though its schema text is self-explanatory.

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 (delete) plus the exact resource (a browser identity of this workspace), which cleanly separates it from browser_create_identity and browser_attach_identity in the sibling list. The scope is stated up front rather than buried.

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 closing sentence gives concrete when-to-use guidance: cleaning up an incomplete pending identity or one no longer needed. It also enforces the selector rule (exactly one of identity_id or name, with the deprecated `identity` still accepted) so an agent knows how to target the call. It stops short of naming a sibling tool to use for related cases such as listing identities.

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