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

Goes well past the destructiveHint annotation: explains that data is not lost but access is, that dependent apps will fail, that the password is unrecoverable and a same-named user gets a new one, and that if the user list could not be fetched nothing is deleted (which must not be misread as 'user does not exist'). It also explicitly flags the DB state as unmeasured and forbids asserting it — exactly the kind of honesty an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the action and its inverse before the edge cases, and every paragraph carries real content (preconditions, irreversibility, failure semantics, unverified claims). It is nonetheless long for a two-parameter tool, with some emphatic repetition ('Sage es genau so, statt es zu behaupten') that could be tightened.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, irreversibility, side effects on dependent applications, failure semantics, and the limits of what is verified. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret it correctly 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 are already documented, including the 'don't guess the login' warning in the schema itself. The description echoes that warning and adds the consequence that a guessed/foreign identifier never reaches the hosting system, but adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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+resource ('Löscht einen Datenbank-Benutzer') and immediately positions it against its inverse sibling create_database_user. It further distinguishes itself from delete_database by clarifying that it deletes ACCESS, not the database itself, so an agent can route among the delete_* siblings without opening schemas.

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 operational preconditions: ask the customer whether anything still uses the user, and check wp-config.php in WordPress. It names create_database_user as the reverse operation. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not routing rule (e.g. delete_database vs this), but the context is unambiguous.

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