Create data deletion request

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description goes beyond that by naming the concrete consequence ('changes account state'), the confirm=true safety gate, and the OAuth scope needed — all real behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations alone.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the two constraints. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding. It is slightly clipped rather than fully structured, but efficient.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with a nested payload object and no output schema, the description covers the safety gate and auth but omits what the call returns, whether the deletion is immediate or queued, and how the payload/payload_file alternatives relate to the individual flags. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema (including confirm's semantics and the payload/payload_file mutual exclusion). The description only echoes confirm=true, adding emphasis but no new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ('Create data deletion request'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling read-side tools (list_data_deletion, get_data_deletion) that an agent will also see, so the agent must infer this is the write counterpart.

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?

It gives a prerequisite ('requires confirm=true for the user-requested action') and an auth requirement ('OAuth integrations require data_deletion:write'), which is useful gating context. It does not, however, say when to prefer this over delete_subscription or other deletion-adjacent siblings, nor when not to use it.

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