remove_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure and does so excellently. It clearly warns that deletion is IRREVERSIBLE, explains that MinIO retains no recoverable copy of the secret, and describes priorState capturing status/policy attachments for potential reconstruction. The dry_run behavior and self-credential refusal are also disclosed, providing comprehensive transparency.

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 well-structured, front-loading the critical warning about irreversibility and risk. It efficiently covers all key behavioral aspects and parameter details without redundancy. The use of a brief Args block for parameters maintains clarity and scannability.

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 and lack of output schema, the description provides a remarkably complete picture: it explains the irreversibility, what priorState captures, how dry_run works, and a specific error condition. This covers the essential operational and safety context needed by an AI agent.

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 provides only names and types with no descriptions (0% coverage), so the description fully compensates. Each parameter is explained with meaningful context: access_key is sourced from iam_users, dry_run executes guards without deleting, and target refers to a MinIO config name with a default omission. This added meaning is essential for correct use.

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 explicitly states 'Delete an IAM user' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like create_user and set_user_status by highlighting the deletion and irreversibility. The additional context about the credential removal makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use the tool (delete an IAM user) and includes important constraints such as refusal when targeting its own credential and the use of access_key from iam_users. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool, falling short of a score of 5.

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