ecp_mssql_delete_user

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

The description explicitly states 'Irreversible', which is a critical behavioral trait. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure, and it does this well by highlighting the permanence of the action. It also implies that the 'confirm' parameter is necessary for the action to proceed, which is important for an agent to know. This is exactly the kind of disclosure that helps an agent avoid a costly mistake.

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?

Extremely concise with no wasted words. Two short sentences: the first states the action, the second states the key caveat. The 'Irreversible' warning is front-loaded after the purpose, which is ideal for a destructive tool. This is efficient and scannable.

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 that this is a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not mention preconditions (e.g., user not owning schemas, needing to revoke privileges first), the impact on dependent objects, or how to verify success. The 'confirm' flag is present in the schema but its purpose is not explained in the description. For a tool of this severity, more context is needed.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all. It doesn't explain what 'db_username' should be (e.g., the exact name, format) or that 'confirm' must be set to true, though the schema's const does that. There is no mention of what happens if the user doesn't exist. The description adds zero value for parameter understanding beyond the schema property names.

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 verb ('Delete') and the resource ('a MSSQL user'), and the tool name reinforces the same. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'ecp_mssql_create_database_user' or 'ecp_mssql_list_db_users', but the action is unambiguous. It would benefit from mentioning the sibling that creates users as a contrast, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as when to revoke privileges instead (ecp_mssql_revoke_privileges) or when a user may still own objects. The description only says 'Delete', without any prerequisite checks. It doesn't mention that this is a destructive action requiring confirmation, aside from the schema's 'confirm' parameter, which is not explained in the description.

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