Remove account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: 'Prompts.' signals the tool will prompt (likely for confirmation), and 'CLI logins untouched' clarifies what is not affected. This gives the agent expectations for interaction and scope without contradicting the 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?

The description is very short and front-loads the core action, which is good. But 'Prompts.' is an ambiguous standalone fragment that is structurally awkward, and the three fragments could be clearer as connected sentences. It is concise but not polished enough to be a model of clarity.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the main behavior (delete token), the prompting behavior, and the boundary (CLI logins untouched). The primary gap is parameter semantics—provider format and accepted values are unstated—which prevents it from being fully complete for correct invocation.

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%: the only parameter, provider, has no description beyond its title. The tool description does not explain what values provider accepts, what it identifies, or how it maps to the stored token. The agent must infer from the name 'provider' that it specifies which provider's token to delete, but this is not explicit enough to compensate for the schema gap.

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 specific action and resource: 'Delete a stored token.' This clearly identifies the tool's function. The phrase 'CLI logins untouched' further distinguishes it from broader account deletion, and the sibling list includes other account tools (accounts_connect, accounts_wait) so the scope is explicit.

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 intended use is implied: call this tool to delete a stored token. The exclusion 'CLI logins untouched' provides some boundary, telling the agent this tool is not for removing CLI login credentials. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or specify conditions for choosing this over related account tools.

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