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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description earns credit by explaining the exact consequence beyond that flag: records are retained but unlinked. It still doesn't state whether the action is reversible or whether re-inviting the same email restores the link, but the core side effect is disclosed clearly.

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 short sentences, each carrying distinct information: the action, the retention side effect, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema, the definition covers action, consequence, and safety step well. The remaining hole is the undocumented 'email' parameter, which is the sole input identifying which account is destroyed and deserves at least a clause.

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 50% and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. The 'site' slug/id format is explained only in the schema, and 'email' is a bare string with no description anywhere — the agent gets no guidance on whether it must match the originally invited address or what happens on a miss.

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 and resource: 'Delete a visitor account'. The agent can distinguish this from list_visitors or invite_visitor by the verb alone, but the description never contrasts it with the near-synonym block_visitor, which is the one sibling an agent could confuse it with.

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?

Gives a use case ('on request under PDPA') and a process guard ('Confirm with the user first'), which is real when-to-use guidance. However, it does not say when to prefer the non-destructive block_visitor alternative, which is the key decision an agent faces for a visitor lifecycle change.

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