Delete sub-account

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description goes further by disclosing the concrete consequences: credentials are revoked, the action cannot be undone, and anything using the sub-account's Auth ID stops working, plus the runtime gating conditions. That is real behavioral context beyond the structured fields.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the destructive action and its irreversibility before the gating conditions. Every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant padding.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: permanence, credential revocation, downstream impact, and required preconditions. Annotations cover the safety hints, so nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (confirm, sub_auth_id) are already fully documented in the schema. The description restates the confirm: true gate but adds no new syntax, format, or sourcing detail for sub_auth_id. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 ('Permanently delete a Vobiz sub-account and revoke its credentials') with the exact scope of the operation. An agent can distinguish it from get_sub_account, update_sub_account, and create_sub_account without opening any schema.

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 clear preconditions for invocation: the tool is gated by the VOBIZ_ENABLE_PROVISIONING environment flag and requires confirm: true. It does not explicitly name a safer alternative (e.g. update_sub_account or unassign_number_from_subaccount), so it stops short of full routing guidance, but the when-to-use context is clear.

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