delete_database_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It explicitly states the action is IRREVERSIBLE, permanently deletes the user, terminates all active sessions, revokes all privileges, and logs the deletion for audit. It also warns about potential errors if the user owns objects, going well beyond what annotations could convey.

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?

Although the description is long, it is highly structured with sections (IMPORTANT, WARNING, Use this tool when, What happens, Required parameters, Safety considerations, Before deleting, Example queries, Best practices, Note). Each section earns its place by addressing a distinct concern—risk, use cases, effects, parameters, safety, procedure, examples, best practices, and CLI mapping. No fluff.

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 high-risk nature, absence of annotations, and lack of output schema, the description leaves nothing to guesswork. It covers the action, consequences, prerequisites, safety checks, step-by-step pre-deletion actions, example queries, and even a CLI equivalent. The tool is fully contextualized within its environment, making it safe for an agent to act on.

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 each parameter clearly. The description adds value by grouping them under 'Required parameters,' clarifying the force flag as optional, providing example queries that map to parameter values, and noting the uppercase requirement for space_id. While not dramatically expanding on the schema, it reinforces practical usage.

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 'Delete a database user from a SAP Datasphere space' with a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_database_user, update_database_user, and reset_database_user_password by focusing solely on deletion. The explicit 'Use this tool when' list reinforces its unique purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (e.g., 'User explicitly requests...', 'Decommissioning user accounts') and a detailed 'Before deleting' checklist that includes verifying dependencies and getting approvals. It also suggests an alternative ('Consider deactivating instead of deleting') and references sibling tools like list_database_users for pre-checks, making usage boundaries crystal clear.

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