Users: delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the removal is scoped to this project, the user loses sign-in and role access, and the role/permissions remain intact for everyone else. Only irreversibility of the deletion itself is not stated.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by consequences, then prerequisites and a safety check. No filler; every sentence adds a distinct fact an agent needs.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers action, scope of effect, what is preserved, prerequisite verification, and the confirmation requirement. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the `id` parameter is already fully documented in the schema (including where to find it via users_list). The description's 'by ID' adds nothing beyond what the schema provides; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Delete) and resource (user) with explicit scope: removal from this project. It clearly separates this from siblings like users_get, users_list, and users_invite, and the ID-based targeting makes the operation 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?

Names a concrete prerequisite ('Make sure you have the right person with `users_get` first') and instructs confirmation before running. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause (e.g., pointing to roles_delete for permission changes), but the pre-step guidance is clear and actionable.

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