delete_human

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states the destructive action and that preview is enabled by default, but it does not explain what preview actually does, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, or what happens to empty groups and related resources. For a destructive tool, these are significant omissions.

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 compact and well-structured: the purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds a relevant behavioral default. There is no fluff or redundancy; every word contributes to the core message.

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?

Despite an output schema being present, this tool has five parameters, no annotations, and zero schema description coverage. The description fails to address the non-obvious parameters delete_empty_group, idempotency_key, and command_id, and does not clarify preview semantics or prerequisites. For a destructive operation, the definition is incomplete.

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%, yet the description adds no real parameter meaning beyond what the schema already exposes. 'Preview is enabled by default' merely restates the schema default, while important parameters like delete_empty_group, idempotency_key, and command_id are never explained. The agent cannot determine the format of human_path or the side effects of the other parameters from this description.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete' and an explicit resource, 'one MCP-owned human', which clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like delete_artifact, delete_object, and delete_sdg_job. Scoping to 'one' entity makes the operation's breadth unambiguous. This is a clear, differentiated purpose statement.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use delete_human versus alternatives like list_humans, get_human, or delete_artifact, and gives no preconditions such as needing a valid human_path. The preview-default note implies a safety posture but does not state when disabling preview is appropriate or how to verify the correct target before deletion.

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