Delete reseller user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description goes well beyond them: it enumerates what is destroyed (domains, mailboxes, mail), states irreversibility, discloses the 403 failure mode for regular accounts and the environment-variable precondition, and mandates confirmation. That is exactly the extra behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the destructive consequence and scope, then eligibility, then the confirmation instruction. No filler and nothing buried.

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?

One required parameter, no output schema, and safety flags already in annotations. The description covers the remaining unknowns an agent needs — cascade damage, irreversibility, auth eligibility, and the refusal error — so nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the single `username` parameter is documented in the schema with an example, so the baseline applies. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the environment-form caveat, which is auth context rather than parameter semantics.

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+resource ('Permanently deletes a user account') with the exact cascade scope spelled out: domains, mailboxes, mail. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling deletes by restricting itself to reseller accounts, so an agent can differentiate it from delete_domain or delete_email_account without opening the schema.

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?

Explicit preconditions and exclusions: reseller accounts only, regular accounts refused with 403, and unavailable when MXROUTE_USERNAME is in `reseller|user` form. It also instructs confirmation before calling. It stops short of naming a reversible alternative (e.g. suspend_reseller_user) for callers who don't want destruction.

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