delete_account

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 well: it discloses that the tool mutates Officer control-plane config, is protected and disabled by default, names the exact refusal codes, and warns that force-deleting strips venue-fee adjustments so fees may be rebooked on restart. That is precisely the destructive side-effect an agent needs before calling.

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 action, which is good, but the middle sentence is a dense run-on enumerating barrier types and refusal codes, and the force/rebooking content overlaps heavily with the force parameter description. Every clause is informative, yet readability and non-redundancy suffer.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the description covers refusals, force semantics, and side effects thoroughly for a two-parameter mutation. It stops short of explaining what 'protected' means operationally or how protection is lifted, which would close the last gap.

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% and the force parameter already documents dependents, venue-fee adjustments, and barrier refusals in detail. The description largely restates that, adding only the 'conflict' refusal for a trading connection's fee account beyond what the schema says. Baseline 3 for a fully documented 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?

Opens with a precise verb+resource ('Delete an account') and immediately scopes it as a control-plane mutation. It never names a sibling, but the operation is distinct enough from delete_group/delete_asset/update_account that confusion is unlikely. Clear, though not explicitly differentiated.

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?

Lays out concrete conditions of use: dependents require force, a trading connection's fee account is always refused, and a long list of barrier/rate-limit/blocked states cause loosening_refused even with force. It gives no positive guidance on alternatives (e.g., clearing a barrier first), so it is strong context without full routing.

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