rm_delete_user

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns with them. It adds value by disclosing the confirm=True gate, which is essential behavioral context since the default is false. It does not detail what archive entails or whether deletion is permanent, but the destructive annotation covers the core risk.

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?

Single sentence with no filler; the destructive warning and confirmation requirement are front-loaded. All words earn their place.

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 with an output schema and destructive annotations, the description conveys the critical invocation requirement (confirm=True). The delete/archive ambiguity and absence of any note about reversibility or permissions are minor given the annotations, so it is mostly 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only clarifies confirm semantics (must be true). This is genuinely useful beyond the schema's default:false. user_id remains self-explanatory from its name and schema type, so the description provides partial but not complete parameter guidance.

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 that the tool deletes or archives a user, naming both the action and the resource. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling user-management tools like rm_create_user and rm_update_user, though the 'delete or archive' disjunction is slightly ambiguous.

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 an explicit operational constraint: confirm=True is required for the destructive action, which tells the agent how to invoke it safely. It does not name alternatives or state when to prefer this tool over update/disable user flows, so the guidance is inferred rather than explicit.

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