panelica_ssh_users_delete_v1_ssh_users_id

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds value by stating 'WARNING: destructive — permanently removes the resource,' which explicitly clarifies that deletion is irreversible, and by naming the required auth scope. There is no contradiction with the annotations, though idempotency is left to the annotation.

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 extremely compact: four short lines each carry distinct useful information (action, HTTP route, category, required scope, and destructive warning). No unnecessary words, and the warning is front-loaded after the action statement.

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 one-parameter destructive delete with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the endpoint, the required scope, and the permanent nature of the operation. It does not explain response behavior or side effects on related resources, but those are not strictly necessary for a low-complexity delete operation.

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 only parameter is clearly described as 'Path parameter: id'. The description repeats the path with ':id' but adds no further semantic detail about the id, such as how to obtain it or any format constraints. This matches the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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 opens with 'Delete SSH user', a specific verb and resource, and reinforces it with the HTTP DELETE path '/v1/ssh-users/:id' and category. Among siblings for SSH users (get, patch, post, suspend, unsuspend), this unambiguously identifies the destructive removal operation.

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?

The verb 'Delete' and the destructive warning imply when to use this tool, and the 'Required scopes: accounts:delete' line provides a precondition. However, there is no explicit guidance contrasting it with sibling operations such as suspend or patch, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is implied rather than directly stated.

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