Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, it doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, or cascades to associated data. It also omits critical details like authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps 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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a structured 'Args' section. There's no unnecessary verbiage, though the formatting with a blank line could be slightly improved for compactness.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but omits behavioral details crucial for safe invocation. The presence of an output schema (not provided in details) might mitigate some gaps, but the description itself doesn't reference return values or error handling.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'user_id' as 'The user's numeric ID.' This adds basic semantic meaning beyond the schema's title 'User Id' and type 'integer', though it doesn't elaborate on format constraints (e.g., valid ranges) or where to obtain the ID.

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 action ('Delete') and target ('a user from the company'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling deletion tools like 'delete_project_user' (which doesn't exist in the list) or 'delete_user', though the 'company' context provides some distinction.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, permissions required), consequences (e.g., data loss, access revocation), or related tools like 'create_user' or 'update_user' for user management workflows.

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