tempo_delete_account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial context beyond that: the human-in-the-loop confirmation requirement, the preview phase, the confirmToken lifecycle, and the MCP_CONFIRM_MODE configuration. This is exactly the kind of behavioral detail annotations cannot convey.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the verb+resource, then the confirmation nuance. Every clause earns its place 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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, the safety protocol, the fallback mechanics, and references MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. An agent has everything needed to invoke this safely without additional context.

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 confirmToken description is already thorough, so the schema carries most of the parameter burden. The description adds the semantic frame for confirmToken (only present in the fallback, never on first call, never invented/reused) that reinforces safe usage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a Tempo account by its key'), distinguishing it from the sibling read tools like tempo_get_account and the update tool. An agent can immediately tell this is the destructive account-removal path.

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?

Clearly explains the confirmation protocol and the two paths (elicitation vs. preview/confirmToken fallback), which is crucial guidance for invoking correctly. It does not, however, name when to prefer this tool over alternatives or warn about consequences of deletion.

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