Elastic MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates the irreversible nature of the deletion ('cannot be undone'), which is critical for a destructive operation. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, error conditions, or what happens to associated 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides a crucial warning. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently conveys essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the irreversible nature but misses details like response format, error handling, or dependencies. Given the high stakes of user deletion, more context would be beneficial.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'username' parameter fully documented. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('a user from Elasticsearch'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'set_user_enabled'. It uses precise language that leaves no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 implies usage through the warning 'This action cannot be undone', suggesting it should be used cautiously for permanent deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., 'set_user_enabled' for disabling instead of deleting) or provide prerequisites like required permissions.

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