Ludus FastMCP

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 'Remove' implies a destructive operation, it doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated resources (e.g., ranges), or any side effects like data deletion. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by brief Arg and Return sections. It avoids unnecessary elaboration, though the 'Returns' line is vague ('Removal result') and could be more informative if not for the output schema handling return values.

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 complexity (a destructive user removal), lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameter but misses critical behavioral details. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description explicitly documents the single parameter ('user_id: User ID to remove'), adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't clarify the format or constraints of the user_id (e.g., numeric vs. string, where to find it), leaving some ambiguity.

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 verb ('Remove') and resource ('a user from the Ludus system'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_range_by_user' or 'revoke_range_access', which might involve user-related removal operations in different contexts.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools involving user or range operations (e.g., 'add_user', 'delete_range_by_user', 'revoke_range_access'), the description lacks context about prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions for user removal.

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