Delete user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description earns credit for adding what those hints cannot: the operation is irreversible and the removal cascades to all of the user's devices. It stops short of noting permission requirements or whether dependent resources (keys, invites) are also affected.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler, and the irreversible consequence is front-loaded right after the action statement. Nothing needs trimming and nothing is buried.

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 destructive, single-parameter mutation with annotations carrying the safety hints and no output schema, the description covers action, scope, and consequence. The remaining gap is preconditions such as required privileges or confirmation expectations, which a delete operation of this severity would benefit from stating.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The user ID to delete'), so the schema fully documents the input. The description adds no format hints (e.g., numeric ID vs email), which is the correct baseline for a fully covered single-param schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete a user from the tailnet') and immediately clarifies the blast radius ('the user and all their devices will be removed'). This clearly separates it from softer siblings like tailscale_suspend_user, tailscale_restore_user, and tailscale_delete_user_invite without the agent needing to open schemas.

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 gives no when-to-use guidance relative to alternatives. With close siblings such as tailscale_suspend_user and tailscale_deauthorize_device available, an agent gets no signal on when deletion is preferred over suspension or why the user must be removed rather than disabled. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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