delete_account_slot

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

Beyond the destructiveHint and idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses exact side effects: only the named key is deleted, other slots/account/transactions are untouched, and failures change nothing. It also documents the reserved '/' error condition for hierarchical slots.

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 front-loaded with purpose and side effects, then covers errors, related tools, and arguments. Every sentence contributes necessary operational detail without repetition or 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?

The description covers behavior, failure modes, alternatives, and both parameters; an output schema exists, so return-value format need not be repeated. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this tool safely.

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 fully carries parameter meaning. It enumerates the three accepted account reference forms and explains the key constraint (no '/' because user slots are flat), adding material guidance absent from the input schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Remove one custom metadata slot from an account.' It sharpens scope with 'only the named key is deleted' and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_account_slots and set_account_slot.

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?

It states the operation is permanent and surgical, and for the alternatives it says 'get_account_slots lists the removable keys; set_account_slot re-creates one.' This tells an agent when to use this deletion tool versus reading or adding slots.

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