Examplary MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description lacks details on critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated data, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure indicators). This is a significant gap for a destructive tool.

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, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it efficient and easy to parse, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail in other dimensions.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter guidance, the description is incomplete. It does not address safety concerns, error conditions, or result expectations, leaving the agent under-informed for a high-stakes operation like user deletion.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description does not mention the 'id' parameter at all, offering no additional meaning beyond what the schema structurally defines. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher; the agent can infer 'id' refers to a user identifier, but the description fails to clarify its format or sourcing.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a user from the workspace'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many sibling deletion tools (e.g., deleteExamsid, deleteFoldersid), which all follow a similar pattern but target different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., user existence, permissions), exclusions, or related tools like patchUsersid for updates or getUsers for listing, leaving the agent to infer usage from context alone.

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