nex_account_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond that by explicitly stating it does not close windows or remove vault copies already stored in an open window. This gives the agent useful behavioral detail that annotations do not cover.

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 with no redundant words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the clarifying caveat about side effects is essential and immediately follows. It earns its place without padding.

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 operation, the description covers the scope (workspace catalog), explicit side-effect exclusions, and has a fully documented schema. No output schema exists, but for a deletion operation that is not a critical gap. The description is adequate for an agent to correctly invoke and understand the tool, though it does not mention return values or success indicators.

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% — every parameter is already described in the schema, including aliases like id, items, and accountIds. The description does not add meaningful detail beyond the schema; the phrase 'one or more platform accounts' aligns with the array support in the schema but adds little. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete'), a specific resource ('platform accounts from the workspace catalog'), and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create/modify/list. It also clarifies what the operation does NOT do, which further pins down its scope.

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 implies usage: it is to be used when deleting accounts from the workspace catalog. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or point to alternatives. The note about not closing windows/vault copies is a side-effect clarification rather than usage guidance, so the guidance is implicit rather than explicit.

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