rybbit_delete_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does an excellent job: it discloses that the operation is DESTRUCTIVE and IRREVERSIBLE, runs asynchronously, and requires specific permissions. No contradictions with annotations (none exist).

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds valuable context (scope, destructiveness, permissions). No wasted words.

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, asynchronous operation, the description covers all essential context: what is deleted, irreversibility, async behavior, and required role/scope. No output schema is needed; the description is complete for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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% for both parameters (siteId and userId). The description reinforces the scope of deletion but adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description states 'Permanently delete a user and all their data' with a specific verb, resource, and scope (events, session replays, profile, aliases), and explicitly labels it as GDPR erasure. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rybbit_identify_user or rybbit_update_user_traits.

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 context for usage (GDPR erasure, permanent deletion) and prerequisites (org admin/owner role, users:write scope), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives. This is clear context without exclusions, fitting a 4.

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