openpanel_delete_profile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully indicates the deletion scope ('all associated data') and regulatory context (GDPR), but omits critical behavioral traits: irreversibility, cascading effects on related records, confirmation requirements, or auth constraints. Adequate but minimal for a destructive 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?

Extremely concise single sentence with no wasted words. The '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise but doesn't significantly detract. Action and scope are front-loaded. However, excessive brevity given the 0% schema coverage and destructive nature of the operation.

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?

Inadequate for a destructive 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema. Missing: parameter documentation, irreversibility warnings, return value description (success/failure indicators), and confirmation flow details. The GDPR mention hints at compliance requirements but doesn't elaborate on verification steps.

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% (no descriptions for site, project_id, profile_id, or confirm). The description fails to compensate by explaining parameter semantics, relationships between identifiers (site vs project_id), or the purpose of the confirm flag. Relies entirely on self-documenting parameter names.

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?

Clearly states the specific action (Delete), resource (user profile), and scope (all associated data). The GDPR compliance mention adds context. Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like openpanel_get_profile or openpanel_list_profiles through the specific verb and destructive scope.

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 GDPR compliance mention implies appropriate usage contexts (privacy/right-to-be-forgotten requests), but lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. Does not warn against accidental usage or suggest when to use profile update/deactivation instead of deletion.

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