combell_mysql_users_delete

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: the operation is irreversible and only read_only users qualify. This aligns with the annotations and gives the agent risk-relevant information.

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 short and information-dense: it states the action, the qualifying condition, and the irreversible side effect in three sentences. There is no filler or repetition, and the key action is front-loaded.

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 simple delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action, eligibility, and irreversibility. However, it does not clarify the meaning or expected values of database_name and user_name, and it could usefully state what happens to associated privileges or whether deletion fails for non-read_only users. The provided information is adequate but not fully complete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the two string parameters, user_name and database_name. It does not explain their format, relationship, or how database_name scopes the user deletion. The tool name and first sentence imply that user_name is the user to delete, but specific parameter semantics are left 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a MySQL database user.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like combell_mysql_users_list, combell_mysql_users_create, combell_mysql_users_set_status, and combell_mysql_users_set_password. The extra constraint about read_only rights further disambiguates its 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 description gives an important eligibility condition ('Only users with read_only rights can be deleted') but does not explicitly guide the agent on when to prefer this tool over alternatives or what to do when the constraint is not met. It implies usage rather than naming sibling tools or exclusions.

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