supabase_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. It discloses critical safety information (permanent, all data deleted) but lacks operational details like required permissions/admin rights, cascading effects on database relationships, or whether deletion is synchronous.

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 brief and front-loaded. However, the '[UNIFIED]' prefix appears to be metadata noise that doesn't aid agent understanding. The single sentence is efficient but arguably too terse given the dangerous 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?

For a destructive operation with zero schema coverage and no output schema, the description is dangerously incomplete. It fails to compensate for undocumented parameters or explain safety guardrails, recovery options, or authentication requirements necessary for permanent data destruction.

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 both required parameters ('site' and 'user_id'), and the description text adds no clarification about what constitutes a 'site' (project ID vs URL) or expected user_id format. The parameters remain completely undocumented.

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 specific action (permanently delete), resource (user), and scope (all their data). It effectively distinguishes from siblings like `supabase_ban_user` (reversible) and `supabase_update_user` by emphasizing the permanent, comprehensive deletion.

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?

While the word 'permanently' implicitly signals this is for irreversible deletion (vs. banning), there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this over `supabase_ban_user` or other alternatives. No prerequisites or warnings about consequences beyond the single word.

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