delete_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them by enumerating the concrete blast radius: org and workspace memberships removed, API keys revoked, active sessions ended, and the operation is permanent. That is precisely the disclosure an agent needs before calling an irreversible delete.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first identifies the operation and its durability, the second lists consequences and the alternative. Permanence and side effects are front-loaded before the routing hint.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers irreversibility, fallout, and the sibling alternative. The only meaningful omission is whether elevated org-admin permissions are required to invoke it.

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% and the single parameter is documented as 'The user ID to delete'. The description's 'by id' adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Delete a user from the org by id') and immediately differentiates it from the closest sibling by naming delete_user_invite for pending invites. An agent can select between the two without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit exclusion with a named alternative ('use delete_user_invite for pending invites instead'), which is exactly the routing guidance needed. It does not address adjacent alternatives such as remove_workspace_member for reducing, rather than ending, access, so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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