Delete a creator profile

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing that dependent read data is removed, that no refund occurs, that re-profiling costs money, and which refusal codes can occur with a support escalation. The remaining gap is that the cryptic phrasing ("what it read", "The charge stays") leaves the exact side effects somewhat ambiguous.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action, but the telegraphic clauses ("and what it read, at once", "The charge stays", "Free.") trade clarity for brevity and read as leftover fragments rather than a well-structured explanation.

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 destructive one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does cover cost, non-refund, dependent-data deletion, and failure modes, which is reasonable. It nonetheless omits confirmation requirements and what precisely is deleted, and leaves the only parameter undocumented.

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% and the single required parameter, profile_id, is never mentioned in the description. The agent gets the crp_ pattern only from the schema, and nothing explains where a profile_id comes from (e.g., get_creator_profile) or what happens with an unknown id, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Delete a creator profile") and adds scope via "and what it read, at once", which separates it from get_creator_profile and from delete_asset/delete_actor in the sibling list. The phrase "what it read" is vague about which dependent artifacts are removed, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative — nothing tells the agent to prefer get_creator_profile for reading or to confirm intent before deleting. The only conditional guidance concerns failure responses (run_not_finished, deletion_held), not tool selection.

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