Permanently remove an admin user by ID. Pass the user ID in path_params to delete the account via the Curricula API.
Permanently delete an administrator user. Calls DELETE /users/{userId}. Put route IDs in path_params and filtering, pagination, sorting, or include values in query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| path_params | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With descriptions carrying full responsibility in the absence of annotations, this description partially delivers: 'Permanently delete' discloses irreversibility, and the endpoint plus param-placement rule adds operational clarity. However, it doesn't mention required permissions, side effects, or failure behavior for an irreversible mutation.
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 short and front-loaded with the core action, but the final sentence is awkwardly phrased and slightly ambiguous ('Put route IDs in query... and filtering...' could be misread). It contains a few useful details without fluff, but the phrasing hurts clarity.
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 the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain the return value. For a mutation tool, it covers the endpoint and param placement but omits documentation of the 'body' parameter and does not mention any prerequisites. It is enough for basic invocation but leaves unanswered questions about behavior on a delete.
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 provides no descriptions for any parameter (0% coverage), so the description must compensate. It does by mapping route IDs to path_params and filtering/pagination/sorting/includes to query, which adds real meaning beyond raw schema names. It still leaves the 'body' parameter unexplained, but the overall guidance is useful.
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 a specific action ('Permanently delete'), identifies the resource ('administrator user'), and provides the exact endpoint ('DELETE /users/{userId}'). This distinguishes it from siblings like create_admin_user, get_admin_user, and delete_account without needing to inspect their schemas.
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?
The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no warnings about irreversible consequences. The only practical hint is where to place route IDs in the request, which is parameter placement rather than usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.