delete_account

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and effectively discloses the destructive, irreversible behavior and the deletion of associated invoices. It does not mention permissions or edge cases, but the core behavioral traits are clearly stated.

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, front-loaded with the key information, and no waste. Very concise and easy to parse.

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 description covers the core behavior and irreversibility, but it lacks an explicit contrast with archive_customer (e.g., when to use delete vs archive) and does not clarify the conditional behavior of purgeInvoices relative to the claimed unconditional deletion of invoices. Given no output schema, return value details are absent but not critical for a simple delete.

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%; accountId has no description but is self-explanatory, and purgeInvoices is described in the schema. The tool description adds context about deleting invoices, but it does not reconcile the unconditional statement with the purgeInvoices parameter, leaving slight ambiguity.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') with a clear resource ('customer account') and scope ('all associated invoices'). It also states the irreversible nature, distinguishing it from archive_customer and invoice-specific tools.

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 phrase 'Permanently delete' and 'Cannot be undone' gives clear context for finality, implying this is for hard deletion rather than archiving. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like archive_customer.

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