delete_account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, and readOnlyHint: false, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds value by disclosing the specific safeguards (deletion blocked when the account has children or transactions), which is meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, and the idempotent hint is consistent with a delete operation.

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 compact: one core sentence stating the action, one sentence on safeguards, and a terse Args block. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids redundancy. Slightly padded by the formal 'Args:' header, but overall efficient with no wasted sentences.

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 an output schema (so return format is covered elsewhere), the description addresses the main concern—what blocks deletion—and documents the input format. However, it does not state that deletion is permanent when allowed, what happens to related data, or whether this cascades, which matters for a destructiveHint: true tool. Adequate but leaves the irreversibility implication implicit.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description carries the full burden of explaining the sole parameter, and it does so well: 'Account ref to delete (full path, %short GUID, or full 32-char GUID)' specifies the accepted formats. This compensates for the schema's bare string definition and gives the agent actionable input syntax.

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 and resource ('Delete an account from the chart of accounts'), which clearly distinguishes it from entity-based siblings like delete_budget, delete_party, and delete_job. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the closely named delete_account_slot tool, leaving the agent to infer that 'account' refers to the chart-of-accounts entity rather than a slot. Still specific and unambiguous about the core action.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as deactivate_many or update_account, nor does it state when not to delete. The only context is the safeguard note ('children or transactions' block deletion), which is a behavioral constraint rather than usage direction. An agent gets no help choosing among the many delete_* siblings.

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