shell_user_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates that a user is deleted, without mentioning consequences such as loss of login ability, cascading removal of home directory data, required permissions, or whether the action is reversible. 'Delete' implies destruction but does not explain its extent.

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?

Uses one concise, front-loaded sentence that conveys the core action without any wasted words. For a simple one-parameter operation, this is appropriately sized and structurally clean.

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?

Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description lacks essential context due to the absence of annotations: it does not state when to use this tool, whether deletion is permanent, or what side effects occur (e.g., the user can no longer log in, or associated data may be affected). A minimum viable description should at least note irreversibility and contrast with shell_user_add.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter user_id with the description 'Shell user ID', so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, but none is needed given the schema's completeness, so the baseline score of 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 operation ('Delete') on a specific resource ('shell user'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling add/update tools and from other delete tools like mail_user_delete or ftp_user_delete by the resource type. However, it is quite terse and does not elaborate on what a shell user is or the deletion scope.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of whether the deletion is irreversible or has cascading effects. An agent cannot determine from the description whether this is the right deletion tool among the many sibling delete operations.

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