beel_end_management

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations. It clarifies that despite destructiveHint=true, nothing is deleted or anonymised. It explains the exact effect on billing, access, and ownership, and details reversibility conditions. It also states the `manage_accounts` entitlement requirement, which is not present in the schema or annotations. This adds significant behavioral context that an agent needs to use the tool correctly.

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 ~150 words and divided into three paragraphs, each adding distinct information: primary effect, reversibility, and prerequisite/endpoint. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and rolls out caveats logically. It is detailed but not bloated; every sentence earns its place. A slightly tighter phrasing would be possible, but the structure is effective.

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?

The description covers all essential behavioral aspects for a destructive but nuanced operation: consequences, reversibility, entitlement, and the endpoint. There is no output schema, so return values are not required. The description is complete enough for an agent to know when and how to invoke it, and what to expect. Missing error conditions are minor given the annotations and the detailed narrative.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must clarify the parameter. It does so by specifying that the account is one 'you provisioned', which contextualizes the account_id as a managed account. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema (a UUID). It doesn't provide format or additional constraints, but the contextual scoping is valuable and partially compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Ends the management relationship over an account you provisioned.' It immediately distinguishes this from other management actions (like changing access level or cancelling representation) by focusing on ending the relationship entirely. It also states concrete consequences (losing access, NIFs no longer billed, holder keeps everything) which makes the tool's intent unmistakable.

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 context is clear: this is the tool for ending a management relationship over a provisioned account. It explains when it is reversible (while unclaimed) and that after claiming, it requires consent, but it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools such as beel_change_managed_access_level or beel_cancel_representation. The description implies when to use it, but does not name exclusions or alternatives, so it falls short of a 5 but is clearly above a 3.

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