Удалить счёт

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context: the refusal behavior when operations exist, and the rationale that deleting such an account would undermine transaction history. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and then adds the crucial exception and alternative. Every part earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, the failure condition, the recommended workaround, and the business rationale. Combined with complete schema documentation and relevant annotations, nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 the parameters account and business are already fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add extra parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given full schema coverage, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource statement: 'Удаляет счёт' (deletes an account). It immediately distinguishes itself from related operations like accounts_save by explaining the archival alternative, so an agent can tell what this tool is for.

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 gives explicit guidance: if the account has transactions, deletion will be refused, and in that case the correct alternative is accounts_save with archived=true. This is a concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use condition with a named sibling alternative.

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