Delete a Zendesk user by providing their unique user ID. Use this tool to permanently remove an account from your Zendesk system.
Delete a user
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | User ID to delete |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description adds nothing beyond what structured data conveys. It doesn't disclose potential cascading effects, whether the deletion is soft or hard, or the openWorldHint implication of external side effects, which leaves the agent underinformed about consequences.
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 a single, concise sentence with no filler. For a one-parameter delete tool, this is appropriately sized and front-loaded; there is no wasted text.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (one parameter, no output schema) and the presence of openWorldHint=true indicating potential side effects, the description is notably incomplete. It omits any mention of what happens on success, failure, or the irreversible nature of deletion, leaving gaps an agent would need to handle.
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%; the schema already describes 'id' as 'User ID to delete'. The description repeats this without adding additional semantics like format, requiredness, or edge-case behavior. Since the schema carries the burden, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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' clearly states the verb (delete) and the resource (user), distinguishing it from sibling tools that target other resources like tickets or organizations. However, it lacks any nuance about scope, irreversibility, or special conditions, so it's clear but not exceptional.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor are there any prerequisites, restrictions, or typical scenarios mentioned. Since this is a straightforward delete operation, some context about required permissions or consequences would help, but none is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.