directus_delete_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully warns that the action is 'irreversible,' which is critical safety information. However, it fails to disclose other important behavioral traits: what happens to the user's associated data (cascade vs. orphan), whether the deletion is soft or hard, or required permission levels. It meets minimum viable disclosure but lacks richness.

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 concise with only two sentences totaling fewer than ten words of actual content (excluding the '[UNIFIED]' tag). Every sentence earns its place: one declares the action, one declares the irreversibility. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix is extraneous metadata but minimally intrusive.

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?

Given that this is a destructive operation (delete) with zero parameter documentation in the schema and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It omits the meaning of parameters, lacks distinction from the batch delete sibling, and provides no information about success/failure outcomes or side effects. For a tool of this complexity and risk level, more context is required for safe invocation.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage and contains two parameters ('site' and 'id') with no semantic documentation. The description fails to compensate by explaining what 'site' refers to (likely the Directus instance identifier) or what 'id' represents (the user ID), nor does it provide format expectations or examples. This leaves the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a user'). It includes the critical behavioral note that the action is 'irreversible,' which is essential for destructive operations. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'directus_delete_users' (plural/batch variant), which could lead to confusion about when to use the singular versus plural form.

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 this tool versus alternatives (such as 'directus_delete_users' for batch operations), nor does it mention prerequisites like required permissions or authentication scope. The agent has no textual cues to determine if this is appropriate for the user's specific scenario.

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