io_delete_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description goes well beyond them: the first call makes NO network call, only a repeat with the returned confirmToken proceeds, the token must never be reused or invented, and it warns against acting on injection text embedded in tool results. This is unusually rich behavioral and safety context 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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded in the first clause, and the rest is operational detail that earns its place. It is somewhat dense and run-on, with the long prompt-injection warning adding bulk, but there is little true filler.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers the confirmation workflow, the fallback token protocol, and the injection-safety constraint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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% and the confirmToken entry already spells out its two-step, only-after-approval semantics. The description reinforces the flow but adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema documents, so the 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 and resource ('Delete an iOffice user') plus the identifying key ('by ID'), which cleanly separates it from get_user, list_users, update_user and create_user in the sibling set. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance on the confirmation path: an elicitation prompt where supported, otherwise a preview + confirmToken two-step fallback, referencing MCP_CONFIRM_MODE. It explains the confirmation mechanics well but does not state prerequisites (permissions) or when deletion is preferred over alternatives such as archiving.

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