delete_account

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent, but the description adds critical context beyond them: two required environment gates, an identity match constraint, irreversibility, and the warning that live behavior is deliberately untested. That last point is exactly the kind of risk disclosure annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three short lines: what it does, what it requires, when not to use it. The destructive scope is front-loaded and no sentence is redundant.

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?

Covers purpose, preconditions, identity verification, misuse cases, and testing caveats; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this destructive tool safely is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that confirmation_user_id must exactly match the authenticated token's subject. That is the only parameter and its full semantic constraint is stated.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Permanently delete this Flighty account") and explicitly disambiguates from the closest sibling by noting it is "separate from removing a flight" (delete_flight). An agent can distinguish it without inspecting either schema.

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 exclusions ("Never use for cleanup or testing") and prerequisites, which is strong when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name an alternative for less destructive account operations (e.g., request_export, get_account_records), so it falls short of the full 5.

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