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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-obvious behavioral trait of 'soft-delete' and the permission requirement (admin/owner only), which is valuable. However, it does not explain the consequences of soft-deletion (e.g., reversibility, effects on user's data).

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates action, resource, and constraint without any fluff. Every word earns its place.

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 tool with one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what it does, who can use it, and the soft-delete nature. It lacks details on post-deletion effects, but given the tool's simplicity, it is mostly complete.

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 fully documents the single parameter 'user' as 'User name or email to delete'. The description adds minimal extra semantic value beyond restating the org scope and permission, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action (soft-delete) and the target resource (a user from the organization), while also specifying the required role (admin/owner only). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_user or invite_user.

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 provides a clear prerequisite (admin/owner only) but does not differentiate from similar sibling tools like remove_user_from_org, nor does it explicitly state when to use this over alternatives. The usage context is implied by the role restriction.

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