mgmt_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 of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Delete', without indicating whether the action is reversible, what happens to associated data (e.g., counters, delegates), permission requirements, or side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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 extremely short but not effectively concise – it under-specifies the tool. The URL takes up space but does not convey operational information. A well-crafted description would use that space to explain behavior and usage, making this an example of under-specification rather than good conciseness.

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 deletion tool with no annotations, no output schema, and only two parameters, the description is far from complete. It omits critical details such as the response format, error cases, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), and the scope of deletion. An agent would have to guess at the tool's behavior and consequences.

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?

The input schema describes both parameters (pretty and user_login) with full coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as clarifying what 'pretty' expects or how user_login is used, but the schema already provides adequate information.

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 'Delete linked account', which conveys a verb and a resource but is essentially a restatement of the tool name. It does not clarify what a 'linked account' is or how this tool differs from related siblings like mgmt_accounts_update or other delete operations. The embedded URL is a documentation link, not a purpose explanation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, no mention of alternatives, and no exclusions. The description provides no context for an agent to decide between this and other account management or delete tools.

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