Delete subscription

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, readOnlyHint=false, so safety is covered structurally. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the state change ('Changes account state'), the confirm gate, and the OAuth scope requirement (subscriptions:write) — details an agent cannot get from the annotations. It stops short of saying whether the deletion is reversible or cascades to related data.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the behavioral constraints. The opening 'Delete subscription.' is mildly redundant with the name/title but serves as an anchor; otherwise there is no waste.

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 mutation with full annotation coverage, complete schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description supplies the extra pieces an agent needs: the confirm requirement, the auth scope, and the state-changing nature. Reversibility/cascade behavior is the one notable omission.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema, including the confirm semantics and the account defaulting behavior. The description's mention of confirm largely restates the schema's own wording, adding little beyond the baseline.

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 and resource ('Delete subscription') that is unambiguous against siblings such as delete_segment, delete_post, and delete_newsletter_list. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with the mutation-adjacent siblings (update_subscription, patch_subscription) that an agent might pick instead of deleting.

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 one real usage gate: confirm=true only for the user-requested action. That is useful context for when to invoke it. But it offers no guidance on when NOT to delete (e.g., prefer update_subscription/patch_subscription to modify or pause) and no mention of prerequisites or account-selection implications.

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