users_delete

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 adds nothing beyond that: no indication of cascading effects on subscriptions, HWID devices, or billing history, and no mention of reversibility. For an irreversible delete, that is a real gap.

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?

Two words is certainly compact and front-loaded, but here the brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. There is no wasted text, yet nothing useful is conveyed either.

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, no-undo operation with one undocumented parameter, no output schema, and no annotations beyond destructiveHint. The description should at minimum identify the required identifier and note that deletion is permanent.

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% for the single required userId parameter, and the description supplies no meaning beyond the obvious name. It does not clarify whether the id is the internal numeric id (as the type suggests) or an alternative identifier such as username or short UUID.

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 verb and resource, so the basic action is unambiguous. However, it essentially restates the tool name (users_delete) and gives no differentiation from siblings such as users_bulk_delete, users_bulk_delete_by_status, or billing_history_delete.

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 prerequisites, and no comparison to the bulk deletion siblings that clearly overlap. The agent is left to infer that this is the single-user variant from the name alone.

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