Contract Testing: Admin Delete User

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

Description states 'Delete' which implies destructive mutation, but annotations set destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. This misleads the agent about the tool's safety profile.

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?

Extremely concise (two lines) but at the cost of omitting critical behavioral context that is missing from annotations. Strikes a poor balance between brevity and completeness.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and contradictory annotations, the description fails to explain return values, permissions, or side effects. Incomplete and misleading.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter userId. The description repeats the parameter with the same description as the schema, adding no additional semantic context.

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?

Description clearly states the action 'Delete a user account' and specifies it's for admin, distinguishing it from non-admin tools. However, among many sibling admin tools (e.g., contract-testing_admin_create_user, contract-testing_admin_update_user), it does not provide differentiation beyond the name.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives like suspend or deactivate. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, no active dependencies) or consequences.

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