requestAccountDeletion

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

The description directly contradicts the annotations: destructiveHint is false, yet the description clearly states the tool requests deletion of the organisation and all associated data (projects, API keys, sessions). This is a serious inconsistency, as the description discloses destructive behavior while annotations mark it as non-destructive. Although the description provides useful context about the seven-day delay and cancellation, the contradiction outweighs that value.

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?

The description is bilingual (English and German), which reduces clarity and adds unnecessary length. It contains essential details but is not well structured; the English opener is clear, but the German portion includes critical information that could be presented more concisely. While not overly long, the mixed-language format and redundant phrasing prevent a higher score.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no parameters in the schema, the description should fully explain the tool's behavior, expected inputs, and response. It covers the deletion scope, the delay, and the confirm_name requirement, but does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., a confirmation or status). The parameter mismatch also leaves the tool incomplete, as an agent would not know to provide confirm_name without schema support.

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?

The input schema has zero properties, but the description references a required `confirm_name` parameter that must exactly match the organisation name. This creates a mismatch between the description and the schema, as the parameter is not defined in the schema. The description adds a parameter that the schema does not acknowledge, which is misleading and confusing for the agent.

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 clearly states the action: 'Request deletion of the organisation' and elaborates on what gets deleted (projects, shares, API keys, etc.). It distinguishes itself by describing the delayed execution and cancellation possibility, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like cancelAccountDeletion or getAccountDeletionStatus. The core purpose is unambiguous, but sibling differentiation is left implicit.

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?

The description does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions that cancellation is possible via DELETE on the same path, hinting at cancelAccountDeletion, but does not state conditions for choosing this tool over others. There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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