profile_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so: it discloses the 409 refusal for running identities, the 404 for missing names, quota behavior while recycled, disappearance from profiles_list, and the loss of an older copy when a name collides in the bin. It also explains why no permanent-delete tool exists, which prevents a futile search.

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?

Front-loaded with the safety-critical fact (recoverable, not erasure) and structured into short paragraphs that each carry distinct information. The closing "Fails with a readable message..." paragraph restates the 404 and 409 cases already covered above, which is mild 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?

For a single-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: preconditions, failure modes with codes, side effects, reversibility, and the deliberate absence of a hard-delete path. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 single parameter has no schema description (0% coverage), and the description compensates by specifying it must be the identity name "exactly as profiles_list reports it" — a real disambiguation against display names or IDs. It stops short of stating case sensitivity or character constraints, so it is not exhaustive.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource ("Move an identity to the recycle bin") and immediately scopes it against the obvious misreading with "this is not erasure." It also distinguishes itself from siblings by naming profile_restore, profiles_list and profile_stop in their relevant roles.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions (stop a running identity with profile_stop first), explicit recovery path (profile_restore), and an explicit prohibition with a redirect ("Do not look for a way around this; tell the human instead"). The when-not and the alternative are both spelled out.

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