user_service_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, reversibility, side effects, or what happens to dependent records. Some behavioral detail (the confirm:true preview behavior) exists only in the schema, not the description.

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 content is short but consists almost entirely of redundant metadata (endpoint string, tag, spec) rather than useful front-loaded information. It is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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, unannotated mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: auth requirements, destructiveness, side effects, and when to choose it over sibling delete tools. It is far short of adequate.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (confirm, user_id, user_service_id). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is essentially a restatement of the tool name and HTTP endpoint: 'DELETE /user/service' plus a Russian translation of the same idea ('Удалить услугу пользователя'). It states a verb+resource but adds no differentiating detail versus the numerous delete siblings (admin_user_service_delete, user_storage_manage_delete, etc.) and no scope clarification.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is provided. An agent cannot tell from this text why it would call user_service_delete rather than admin_user_service_delete or any other delete endpoint.

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