delete_metabase_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a deletion operation, implying it's destructive, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent/reversible, what permissions are required, if there are side effects (e.g., orphaned resources), rate limits, or error conditions. The return value is mentioned but not elaborated beyond type.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence earns its place, though the Returns section could be more informative given the output schema exists. No wasted words, but slightly sparse for a destructive operation.

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 this is a destructive tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context (safety, permissions, side effects) and usage guidance. The output schema mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall completeness is limited for a high-stakes operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, the description compensates well by explicitly documenting the parameter in the Args section: 'user_id (int): ID of the user to delete.' This adds essential meaning beyond the bare schema, clarifying the parameter's purpose and type. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., valid ID range) or examples.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a user from Metabase'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling delete tools (like delete_metabase_card, delete_metabase_collection, etc.) beyond specifying the resource type, which is somewhat implied by the tool name itself.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools include create_metabase_user and get_metabase_users, the description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), exclusions (e.g., cannot delete active users), or related operations. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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