delete_auth_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively communicates that this is a destructive operation ('Deletes'), specifies authentication requirements ('Requires service_role key'), and indicates infrastructure needs ('direct DB connection'). It does not mention potential side effects (e.g., cascading deletions) or response format, but covers critical safety and access aspects adequately for a tool with no annotations.

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 two concise sentences with zero wasted words: the first states the core action and target, and the second specifies prerequisites. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and efficiently conveys essential information without redundancy or 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 tool's complexity (destructive operation with authentication requirements), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, prerequisites, and behavioral traits. It lacks details on return values or error handling, but for a single-parameter tool with high schema coverage, it provides sufficient context for safe invocation, though not fully exhaustive.

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 the parameter 'user_id' fully documented in the schema as a UUID. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the ID is used for deletion, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 when the schema provides complete parameter information.

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 specific action ('Deletes'), target resource ('a user from auth.users'), and identifier mechanism ('by their ID'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like update_auth_user or list_auth_users. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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 explicitly states prerequisites ('Requires service_role key and direct DB connection'), which helps determine when this tool can be used. However, it does not specify when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., update_auth_user for deactivation vs. deletion) or provide exclusions, limiting its guidance to context setup rather than comparative decision-making.

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