delete_account_slot

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether removal is permanent, whether an error occurs if the slot doesn't exist, or any prerequisites. For a destructive operation this is a notable gap.

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 concise with an opening one-line purpose statement followed by structured parameter descriptions. It's efficient and front-loaded with the key action. Could be argued it's slightly under-specified but overall well-structured.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials. The account parameter addressing formats are well documented, which is often a tricky area. However, for a destructive operation with zero annotations, the lack of behavioral notes about error handling or reversibility leaves it slightly incomplete despite the output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does a good job: it explains the account parameter accepts full paths, %short GUIDs, or full GUIDs, which is meaningfully beyond the schema's bare 'string' type. The key parameter is described as 'Slot key to remove' but could use more detail on format.

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 uses a specific verb+resource combination: 'Remove a custom metadata slot from an account.' This clearly states what the tool does. It distinguishes from related siblings like get_account_slots and set_account_slot by using the 'Remove' verb, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 context about what it does (removing a metadata slot) which implies usage for cleaning up account metadata. However, there's no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives named. The usage is clear from context but not spelled out.

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