Api users destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds no complementary context (what is removed, cascade behavior, permission requirements) and its phrase 'viewed or edited' actively obscures the destructive nature of the call.

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?

One short sentence, but it is boilerplate rather than a useful front-loaded statement. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not efficiency.

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?

A destructive, open-world mutation with no output schema and no annotations beyond the hints needs a description explaining what deletion entails and what permissions are required. The current text covers none of this and mislabels the operation.

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 single required parameter 'id' has zero schema description coverage, and the description says nothing about it. It does not clarify whether the id is a UUID, slug, or integer, nor whether related objects are affected.

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 is generic Django REST boilerplate ('allows users to be viewed or edited') and never states that this endpoint deletes a user. It effectively restates the resource name while omitting the specific verb that the tool name (destroy) implies.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus the many sibling user endpoints (retrieve, list, partial_update, update). No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mention of irreversible removal.

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