user_email_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state whether the deletion is permanent, what happens to the account email afterwards, or whether it requires confirmation. The confirm parameter description in the schema hints at a preview mode, but the description itself discloses nothing beyond the raw endpoint.

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 very short and front-loads the HTTP method and path. However, it includes low-value metadata lines (Tag, Spec) that add no decision-relevant information, so it is terse without being well-structured for an agent.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It omits the effect of the deletion, any prerequisites or permissions, and any distinction from the many other user_*_delete siblings, leaving the agent with only the endpoint name.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters (confirm, user_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including the preview behavior for confirm. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 gives the HTTP method and path (DELETE /user/email) and a one-line Russian gloss ('Delete user email'), which conveys the verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like user_email_get/user_email_post/user_email_put, and the purpose is essentially a restatement of the name rather than an explanation of scope or effect.

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 use this tool versus the related user_email_get/post/put or user_otp_delete tools. The tag and spec lines are metadata, not usage routing, so the agent gets no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use signal.

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