cwp_account_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral trait — that the deletion is permanent/irreversible — which is genuinely useful beyond the name. However, it omits auth/permission requirements, whether associated data (FTP, databases, files) is also removed, and confirmation/irreversibility semantics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though extremely terse for a destructive 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 one-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but thin. It should arguably warn about the irreversible loss of account data and any permissions or prerequisites, which are currently left unstated.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'username'. Per the calibration rule, the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting; the description adds no syntax, format, or lookup 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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (CWP account), and the adverb 'permanently' implicitly contrasts with the sibling cwp_account_suspend, helping the agent distinguish destructive from reversible actions. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the verb+resource+scope 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no routing to alternatives such as cwp_account_suspend for temporary disabling. The intended usage is only implied by the word 'permanently'.

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