users_bulk_delete_by_status

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description's capitalized 'ALL' usefully emphasizes the unbounded scope of the delete, but it says nothing about irreversibility, cascade effects on subscriptions/traffic history, or permissions required.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier appears immediately after the verb.

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, no-output-schema mass-delete tool this is adequate but thin: it omits reversibility, whether the operation is bounded to a workspace, and any confirmation/response semantics an agent would want before invoking it.

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%, but the single parameter is a self-documenting enum (ACTIVE/DISABLED/LIMITED/EXPIRED), so meaning is largely inferable. The description adds nothing about what each status implies for deletion eligibility.

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?

Specific verb (delete), resource (users), and scope qualifier ('ALL users that have the given status'), which clearly separates it from users_bulk_delete (a named set) and users_delete (single user). It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings, so the distinction must be inferred from the tool name.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative bulk-delete tools for specific users, and no warning that this is a mass operation requiring confirmation. The agent gets no routing or precondition information.

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