Delete User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a user' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is permanent, requires admin permissions, affects associated data (e.g., sites), or has rate limits. For a high-risk tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete a user'), making it immediately scannable. Every word earns its place, achieving perfect conciseness for such a straightforward 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?

Given the tool's high complexity (destructive mutation) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, irreversibility, or side effects, nor does it explain return values. For a delete operation, this leaves critical gaps for safe agent invocation.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters ('id' and 'reason'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the format of 'id' or when 'reason' is required. However, with high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 resource ('user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'create_user' or 'update_user' by specifying the destructive action. However, it doesn't specify what 'system' refers to or the scope of deletion (e.g., permanent vs. soft delete), which prevents a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), consequences (e.g., data loss), or when to choose other tools like 'update_user' for deactivation instead. With siblings like 'create_user' and 'update_user', this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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