delete_subscriber

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It does disclose the cascading behavior of deleting purchase history, which is important. However, it does not explicitly state that the action is irreversible, whether it cancels subscriptions, or any permission requirements. 'Use with caution' is a general warning but lacks specific behavioral context.

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 extremely concise: one sentence stating the core action and a short warning. Every word is necessary and front-loaded. It delivers the essential information without redundancy.

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?

Given the destructive nature (no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial information about irreversibility, potential side effects on subscriptions/entitlements, and any prerequisites or permissions. It also does not position itself relative to sibling tools like revoke_entitlement, which is a key alternative. While the tool is simple, the one-paragraph description does not sufficiently prepare an agent for a destructive action.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% (app_user_id is described as 'The app user ID to delete.'), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as format, constraints, or examples, so it does not exceed the baseline.

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 clearly states the action: 'Delete a subscriber and all their purchase history.' This is a specific verb+resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like grant_entitlement or get_subscriber by being the only tool that deletes a subscriber entirely.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Use with caution' implies careful usage but does not say when to use it, when not to use it, or mention any alternative tools. With siblings like revoke_entitlement, it would be helpful to state that this is for permanent deletion as opposed to revoking access.

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