locations_delete_location

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds the auth requirement (agency-level token vs location PIT), which is a useful contextual detail beyond the annotations. However, it does not describe what happens to associated data or the irreversible nature of deletion, though the destructive hint partially covers this. Overall, it provides some added context but not extensive behavioral disclosure.

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 a single concise clause, front-loaded with the core action and terminology clarification followed by the critical auth note. It is efficient and contains no fluff. However, it is very terse and could be structured as a sentence, but it still conveys necessary information.

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 has only two parameters, but it is a destructive, idempotent operation with a specific auth requirement. The description covers the auth requirement, which is crucial, but it does not mention the effect on related data or the absence of an output schema. Given that the annotations flag destructive and idempotent, the description is minimally sufficient but could benefit from a note about permanence or cascading effects.

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%: both parameters (locationId and deleteTwilioAccount) have descriptive text in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters, but since the schema fully documents them, the baseline of 3 applies. No compensation needed.

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 and resource: 'Delete Sub-Account (Formerly Location)'. This clearly identifies the action and the target entity, and clarifies the terminology difference (sub-account vs location), distinguishing it from other delete operations like locations_delete_tag or contacts_delete_contact. The purpose is unambiguous.

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 description gives an explicit usage constraint: 'requires an agency-level token, not a location PIT'. This tells the agent when it is appropriate to use this tool (with agency-level credentials) and implicitly when not (with a location PIT). It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but among the many delete tools, this auth note is a strong routing cue.

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