marketplace_delete_developer_account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the non-obvious side effect that deletion may orphan a management workflow, which is genuine extra context. However, it omits the plan/apply mode workflow and the confirmation parameter entirely, which are significant behavioral facts for a destructive op.

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?

Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure 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?

This is a destructive operation with a two-stage plan/apply workflow, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, which places the full explanatory burden on the description. The description covers only the action and one side effect, leaving mode semantics, confirmation, and irreversibility details unaddressed.

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% and all three parameters are undocumented. The description never mentions the plan/apply mode enum, partner_id, or the confirmation string, so an agent has no way to know the call may be a dry-run or an applied deletion without reading the raw 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?

The description gives a specific verb+resource ("Delete a developer account") that cleanly distinguishes it from siblings like create_developer_account, update_developer_account, and list_developer_accounts. It stops short of explicitly naming or ruling out any alternative, but the purpose is 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 statement of when to use this tool versus update_developer_account or any other sibling, and no prerequisites are described. "May orphan its management workflow" is a consequence, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing or precondition information.

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