delete_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the actual blast radius — the user loses access to every endpoint and resource — which is real consequence detail beyond the boolean flags, though it says nothing about recovery, cascade effects on owned resources, or auth requirements.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and endpoint, then the consequence, then the alternative — good ordering with no filler. Minor deduction for the slightly awkward phrasing ('By deleting a user he will...') and mild redundancy about access loss.

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?

For a two-parameter destructive tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers action, consequence, and the safer alternative. What remains unstated — irreversibility, dependent-resource handling, permission requirements — is a modest gap for a destructive operation but not a blocking one.

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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including the trace header. The description only implies the userId comes from the path template; it adds no format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete existing user by id') plus the concrete endpoint, and distinguishes it from the sibling update_user by pointing at the 'enabled' attribute for the non-destructive path. An agent can tell this apart from update_user or delete_role without opening a schema.

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?

Explicitly splits the decision: use this for removal, use the enabled attribute to temporarily disable. That is an explicit when-to-use versus when-to-use-something-else statement, which is the highest bar for this dimension.

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