delete_sub_account

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

Annotations only provide destructiveHint: true, but the description adds significant detail: it removes the Firebase auth account and all template access records, and is irreversible. This goes well beyond the annotation and fully discloses the impact.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The core action and warning are front-loaded, and every sentence adds value.

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 single-parameter destructive tool, the description covers purpose, consequences, and irreversibility. It is complete for an agent to decide whether and how to invoke it.

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 schema description for userId is 'Sub-account user ID to delete', which fully covers the parameter. The description adds no extra parameter detail, but with 100% schema description coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as it does not need to compensate.

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 states a clear verb ('delete') and resource ('sub-account'), and specifies the scope: 'revoke all their access'. It is distinct from sibling tools like delete_template or delete_location, making it unambiguous which resource is affected.

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?

It clearly signals caution and implies this is for permanent removal ('cannot be undone'), but doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it (e.g., for temporary disabling). Since there is no alternative sub-account deletion tool, the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.

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