Delete a saved Amazon account profile along with its browser session and cached order data. Provide the account name to clear all stored data for that account.
Delete a saved account profile, its browser session, and cached orders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account_name | Yes | Profile name to remove |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add valuable non-obvious context by disclosing the cascading effects (browser session and cached orders are also deleted), but it omits whether the deletion is permanent/reversible, whether it requires an active session or re-login, and what confirmation is needed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the destructive verb leads and the scope of deletion follows immediately.
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 destructive single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is removed but not the permanence, error behavior, or auth requirements. It is adequate but leaves meaningful holes for an irreversible operation.
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 100% and the single parameter 'account_name' is already documented as 'Profile name to remove'. The description adds no syntax, format, or matching semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 gives a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('saved account profile'), and further scopes it by naming the collateral artifacts removed (browser session, cached orders). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings, but no sibling (list_accounts, login_account, sync_orders, get_orders) performs removal, so the intent is still unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or a confirmation step. Since this is the only removal tool among the siblings, the gap is less about routing and more about the absence of any operational context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.