forcepoint_user_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly labels the operation as 'high-risk mutation', which is a strong warning about consequences. It also discloses the conditional requirement for authorizationKey, adding useful context beyond the schema. However, it does not explain permanence, error cases, or side effects, so it is not a 5.

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 short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides essential risk/requirement info. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.

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?

As a destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain whether deletion is permanent, what happens if the user is active, or what the response looks like. It provides a warning but lacks critical operational details that an agent needs for safe 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 0%, and the description does not compensate for the lack of parameter explanations. It mentions authorizationKey only as a conditional requirement, but does not clarify the roles of userId vs companyemail (which is required), or how they relate. This leaves significant ambiguity for the agent.

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 a specific action ('Delete') on a specific resource ('deactivated Forcepoint user'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like user_deactivate or user_get. The 'deactivated' qualifier adds a precise scope, making the intent unambiguous.

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 implies that deletion is intended for deactivated users, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., user_deactivate for deactivation or user_reactivate for reactivation). There is no 'use this when' or 'use X instead' guidance, only a contextual hint.

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