tempo_delete_account

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

Annotations already flag this as destructive and not read-only, but the description adds valuable behavioral detail: it surfaces the confirmation requirement, explains the preview-plus-confirmToken fallback flow, and clarifies that a repeat call with the token is required when the client lacks support for a confirmation prompt. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by a compact explanation of the confirmation flow. Every clause contributes necessary information about a destructive operation, with no filler.

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 two-step deletion flow with no output schema, the description explains the confirmation mechanism, the preview token, and the requirement to repeat the call with the same arguments. An agent has enough information to invoke the tool correctly and to guide the user through confirmation.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both `key` and `confirmToken` thoroughly, including the token's restrictions. The description adds process-level context but does not materially enrich the meaning of the parameters beyond what the schema states.

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 the specific verb-resource pair 'Delete a Tempo account' and identifies the required selector ('by its key'). It clearly differentiates from sibling delete tools like tempo_delete_worklog, tempo_delete_plan, and tempo_delete_team by naming the exact resource type.

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 gives clear operational context: it is used to delete a Tempo account, and the user must confirm before deletion occurs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but no competing delete-account sibling exists, so the guidance is sufficient for an agent selecting this tool.

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