watchguardcloud_delete_account

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 does disclose the destructive nature ('Delete') and the cascading effect of 'force' on child accounts. However, it does not mention irreversibility, required permissions, or what happens when child accounts exist and force is false.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the optional force behavior is stated immediately after, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the main action and the force option. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves unclear consequences such as failure when child accounts exist without force, and it does not describe the response or side effects beyond deletion.

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 force parameter is already described in the schema, and the description mostly restates it. The accountId parameter has no schema description, and the description only indirectly implies it identifies the account to delete. It adds little meaning beyond what the parameter names and schema already convey.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('managed WatchGuard Cloud account'), and the 'force' clause adds the scope of deletion. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools such as watchguardcloud_get_account, watchguardcloud_create_account, and watchguardcloud_delete_operator.

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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever a managed WatchGuard Cloud account needs to be deleted. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, such as watchguardcloud_delete_operator for deleting operators instead.

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