delete_profile

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

Annotations already flag destructive=true, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: exactly what is revoked/archived/declined/deleted, that history is kept and unlinked, the username is retired for good, the primary-promotion behavior, and that the action cannot be undone.

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?

Long, but front-loaded with the core action and side effects before auth mechanics. Each sentence carries distinct operational information (cascade effects, edge cases, authentication path), though the access/restart paragraph is somewhat boilerplate-heavy.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by noting the response names the promoted primary project, and it fully covers authentication, failure conditions, irreversible consequences, and edge cases for a single-parameter destructive tool.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema does the documentation work. The description references 'this project id' and 'targets [this project id]', which confirms identity but adds no format or constraint 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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Delete a project (profile)') and immediately enumerates the concrete side effects, so an agent can distinguish it from delete_circle, delete_template, or delete_hitl without inspecting schemas.

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?

States explicit preconditions and exclusions: the last project cannot be deleted, deleting the primary promotes the oldest remaining, API-key-only callers may delete only an EMPTY project, and 2FA via start_2fa_for_action is required in a start_login session. Alternatives and failure modes (owner_session_required) are named.

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