anon_delete_accounts_account_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: required permission (accounts:manage) and visibility scope, plus clarification that the project is auto-determined. It does not, however, describe side effects such as cascading deletion or irreversibility details.

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 short, front-loaded with the core action, and structured as purpose, permission requirement, endpoint, and project clarification. Every line adds relevant information, though the endpoint line is somewhat redundant with the schema's path structure.

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 simple destructive delete tool whose annotations already carry the safety profile, the description supplies the key missing context: permission requirement and automatic project scoping. It lacks any note on what happens to the deleted account's associated data, but that is a minor gap given the basic operation and no output schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single required parameter accountId. It clarifies that projectId is not needed (useful negative information) but never explains what accountId represents or its format. The schema itself only enforces a non-empty string, leaving the parameter largely undocumented.

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 (删除) and resource (平台账号), clearly distinguishing it from sibling account tools like anon_get_accounts and anon_patch_accounts_account_id. An agent can identify the operation and target without opening the schema.

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?

Provides prerequisite conditions (accounts:manage permission, visibility scope) but does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., anon_delete_members_user_id or other delete tools). Usage is only implied by the name and permission note.

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