Delete an Umami user

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description explains that the deletion is permanent, irreversible, and requires explicit confirmation. It also discloses the important side effect that owned websites are not deleted but become inaccessible, plus environment constraints.

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 front-loaded with the core action and its most important consequence. It is compact, organized, and each section serves a purpose, with the return format included since no output schema exists.

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 two-parameter destructive tool, the description covers prerequisites, environment limitations, effects on associated resources, irreversibility, required confirmation, and the expected return value. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool 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 coverage is 100%, and the parameter descriptions in the schema already convey everything needed: user_id is a UUID and confirm must be true with no undo. The description's Args section mostly duplicates the schema, so it adds little new semantic value.

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 uses a specific verb ('delete') and resource ('login account') and clearly states the scope: a self-hosted Umami instance. It distinguishes itself from related deletion tools like delete_website and delete_team by focusing on user account 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?

The description provides clear conditions for use: admin access required, not available on Umami Cloud, and confirm=true must be passed. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for related actions like updating a user, but the context is sufficient for an agent to know when this tool applies.

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