account_delete

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

With only a title annotation, the description carries the full behavioral burden and meets it excellently. It discloses that both the stored record and live jar are removed, that cookies are credentials and deletion is permanent, that running sessions retain an in-process handle but nothing writes back, and the exact return/error shape.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the first defines scope, the second conveys permanence and gravity, the third covers runtime behavior and return values. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what is deleted, the irreversible nature, session edge-case behavior, and the expected response and error format. An agent has everything needed 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 coverage is 100% and the parameter description already states 'The account to delete: stored record AND live jar.' The tool description adds the context that this is a 'named login identity' but does not provide additional format, constraints, or syntax beyond the schema. 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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and a specific resource ('a named login identity'), and clarifies scope by naming both the stored record and the live jar. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like account_list and account_verify.

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 destructive intent is unmistakable: 'delete means gone' and 'Cookie values are credentials' make clear this is the permanent removal tool, not list or verify. It lacks an explicit 'use this when...' or 'instead of...' statement, but the context is strong enough that an agent would not confuse it with alternatives.

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