Delete user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no mention of irreversibility, what happens to the user's owned projects/contributions, or required permissions — so it earns little credit above the annotation baseline.

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 sentence with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise: it says nothing an agent could not infer from the name alone, so no sentence earns its place.

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 destructive, 32-parameter, no-output-schema mutation tool, the definition is wholly inadequate. It omits the identifier parameter, permission/auth requirements, irreversibility, and cascade effects on user-owned resources.

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 0% across 32 parameters, so the description must compensate and instead says nothing. Critically, user_id (the obvious required identifier) is not mentioned, and the many pagination/filter params (page, per_page, sort, order_by, created_after, without_projects) that belong to list endpoints are left completely unexplained, inviting misuse.

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 'Delete a user' merely restates the tool name and title, adding no distinguishing information. An agent gets no signal about scope (hard delete vs. soft/blocked), which user identifier is authoritative among the 32 params, or how this differs from sibling deletion tools like gitlab_delete_project.

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 whatsoever on when to use this tool, prerequisites (admin token, sudo), or warnings to prefer alternatives such as blocking a user or gitlab_update_user. Nothing tells the agent when not to call it.

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