Delete User

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the destructive action and the read-only-mode restriction, but it does not mention that the deletion is likely irreversible, whether confirmation is required, or what side effects occur.

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 short and every sentence contributes: the first states the purpose, the second warns about read-only mode. It is not padded, though it could afford slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 tool with four parameters, no annotations, and a partial schema, the description is not complete enough. It omits the confirmation workflow, potential overlap with sibling delete_grant, and behavioral expectations, even though the output schema covers return values.

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 only 50%, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning. The critical parameters confirm and confirmation_token are left undocumented in both the schema and the description, even though they likely control whether the deletion actually proceeds.

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 clearly states the action ('Remove a user's access') and the resource ('developer account'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like delete_grant or update_user, which could also affect user access.

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 on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as delete_grant or update_user. The note 'Disabled in read-only mode' is a restriction, not a usage directive, so the description leaves invocation context ambiguous.

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