users_bulk_actions_bulk_delete_users_by_status

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description bears the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing: no irreversibility warning, no permission requirements, no indication of how many users a status match can affect, and no mention of the preview/confirm flow that the schema reveals. Only the tool name conveys the destructive nature.

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?

Very short and front-loaded, but the raw 'POST /api/users/bulk/delete-by-status' line and the 'Tags: Users Bulk Actions Controller' boilerplate are noise that displaces useful content. Efficient, but not every line 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 destructive bulk operation with zero annotations, no output schema, and a nested required body object, the description omits critical context: confirmation semantics, blast radius, and failure behavior. The agent cannot safely invoke this from the description alone.

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 50%: the 'confirm' parameter carries a detailed (Russian) description of the preview behavior, but the required 'status' enum has no per-value explanation. The description adds no meaning to either parameter, leaving the caller to infer the enum's effect from names alone.

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?

States a specific verb ('Bulk delete') and resource ('users') with a scoping qualifier ('by status'), which distinguishes it from the ID-based users_bulk_actions_bulk_delete_users sibling. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or clarifying the status filter's semantics, so it lands at clear-but-undifferentiated rather than fully distinguished.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over users_bulk_actions_bulk_delete_users (targeted delete) or users_disable_user / users_bulk_actions_bulk_update_users for less destructive outcomes. No prerequisites, no warning that this is irreversible mass deletion.

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