packages_user_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that the operation is destructive ('Delete') but does not explain consequences such as whether users assigned to the package are affected, whether the operation is reversible, or what happens when the package is in use. It also states 'confirm: Required,' which contradicts the schema's default-false optional confirm field, adding confusion.

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 appropriately short and front-loaded, with the action stated first and arguments listed compactly. For a two-parameter tool, this size is reasonable. The only structural flaw is that the 'confirm: Required' note is inaccurate and misleading, slightly reducing the value of the concise format.

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 tool with no annotations, the description should provide more context about preconditions, side effects, and confirmation semantics. It does not explain whether the operation requires the package to be empty, whether it cascades to dependent resources, or what the confirmation flag actually does. The presence of an output schema covers return values, but the missing operational context is significant.

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%, so the description must compensate by defining parameters. It names 'package' as a package name and mentions 'confirm,' but the confirm description is misleading: it says 'Required' while the schema marks confirm as optional with a default of false. The description does not clarify what value confirm should take, what types are expected, or what the boolean meaning is.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a user package.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling delete operations like users_delete (deleting a user) and from package management tools like packages_user_save and packages_user_list. The resource type is named enough to avoid ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as packages_user_save or packages_user_list. The description simply states the action with no context about prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. An agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.

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