profile_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the destructive action ('delete') without any details on consequences, reversibility, permissions, or effects on associated sessions. It neither warns about permanent deletion nor explains what happens to dependent data, leaving the agent blind to important safety considerations.

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 a single, compact sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. There is no redundant filler, and the alias clarification is brief. However, it might be slightly too terse given the lack of supplementary context, but it earns high marks for efficiency and structure.

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?

This is a destructive operation with three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides only the core action. It omits critical context such as success/failure behavior, prerequisites (e.g., whether the session must be released), and potential side effects. The description is inadequate for an agent to safely invoke this tool without additional external knowledge.

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%, meaning all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional insight into the parameters or how they interact beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 applies. It does not clarify the lease token semantics or session targeting beyond the schema's own explanations.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('profile directory'), and explicitly identifies itself as an alias of 'session_delete', which distinguishes it from other session/profile management tools. The agent immediately understands what the tool does and that it is equivalent to another available tool.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond noting it is an alias of session_delete. This implies either tool can be used interchangeably, but there is no discussion of specific scenarios or exclusions. The presence of the alias hint gives some direction but fails to clarify when to prefer profile_delete over other sibling tools like session_close or session_delete.

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