Delete an account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description still adds real value beyond them: the accounts:write scope requirement and the non-obvious note that the call returns success even for a nonexistent account. However, it says nothing about what data is destroyed or whether the deletion is reversible or cascades to campaigns/audiences.

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?

Four short, front-loaded lines with no filler: purpose first, then auth scope, endpoint, and the return-value caveat. The opening sentence duplicates the title, but the remaining lines each carry distinct information.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the essentials: scope, endpoint, and the surprising idempotent-success behavior. The main remaining gap is the blast radius of the deletion, which an agent would want before invoking a destructive operation.

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 single parameter's schema text is only "Path parameter `id`." The description's DELETE /accounts/{id} line confirms that id is the account identifier in the path, which is a small but genuine clarification. Beyond that it adds no format, validation, or example detail.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete an account"), which cleanly separates it from sibling mutators such as delete_campaign, delete_folder, delete_proxy and delete_audience. It also names the exact endpoint DELETE /accounts/{id}. It does not explicitly call out siblings, but the resource-level naming is unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to delete versus when to use update_account, relogin_account, or set_account_listening, nor any stated precondition (e.g., whether the account must be disconnected or campaign-free first). The only usage-relevant constraint given is the required API key scope accounts:write. An agent must infer the trigger conditions entirely.

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