n8n: Delete user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds nothing beyond that: it doesn't say what is destroyed alongside the user (owned workflows, credentials, project memberships), whether the action is reversible, or what permissions are required for a hard-delete operation.

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?

A single sentence with no wasted clauses, but the '[UNIFIED]' prefix is unexplained noise and the extreme brevity comes at the cost of any substance. Short is good here only because there is so little to say.

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?

This is a destructive, non-idempotent mutation with two undocumented required parameters and no output schema. For that complexity profile the description should clarify the site parameter and the consequences of deletion, and it does neither.

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% for two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and provides nothing. 'user_id' is guessable from its name, but 'site' is entirely opaque — it could be an instance URL, tenant slug, or region — and is left unexplained in both schema and 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 states a specific verb and resource (delete + user) and scopes it to 'the instance', which distinguishes it from create_user/get_user siblings by name alone. It lacks any explicit differentiation from related destructive siblings like delete_credential or remove_project_user, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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 use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites (admin scope? instance vs project membership?), and no warning about when deletion is inappropriate. The agent must infer all invocation context from the tool name.

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