edubase_delete_user_login

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, indicating mutation. However, the description does not disclose potential side effects, such as whether the link becomes immediately invalid, whether the user's other login links are affected, or whether this is reversible. With no additional behavioral context, the description adds little beyond the annotations, and the destructive nature is not elaborated.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the core action. It contains no filler or redundant information, making it efficient and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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?

The description is complete enough for a simple two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema. However, given destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true, additional context about the effects and prerequisites would improve completeness. The tool's role in the larger login management workflow is not mentioned, but the core operation is clear.

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%, with each parameter having a short description ('generated login link to be invalidated' and 'user identification string'). The description does not add further nuance, such as the format of the URL or user string, or any constraints like whether the user must match the link's user. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameters.

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 action ('Invalidate a login link') and the resource ('previously generated for a user'). It distinguishes the tool from siblings like edubase_post_user_login (which generates) and edubase_get_user_login (which retrieves), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it could explicitly mention the user association to differentiate from other delete tools.

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 implies usage: when a login link exists and needs to be invalidated. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as edubase_delete_exam_autologin or edubase_post_exam_users_generate. No exclusions or alternative conditions are provided, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names.

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