delete_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds the crucial consequence 'This action cannot be undone' and the data-retention tradeoff. It does not disclose side effects on related entities, required permissions, or whether the user must be inactive first.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the irreversibility warning before the alternative. Minor redundancy between 'Delete a user' and 'Permanently delete a user using its unique identifier' keeps it from a 5.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential facts: permanence, identifier-based targeting, and the archive alternative. Remaining gaps (cascading effects, permission requirements) are secondary but real for a delete operation.

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?

There is one parameter (a nested path.userId) and schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description carries the burden; 'using its unique identifier' loosely maps to userId but adds no format or type detail. That is the minimum viable compensation for a single-parameter schema.

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 a user') and immediately qualifies the scope with 'Permanently' and 'using its unique identifier'. It also carves out territory against the archive_user sibling by noting that archiving is a different, non-destructive option.

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 when-to-use (permanent deletion) and when-not (if you want to retain data and history, archive instead), which is real routing guidance. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (archive_user) directly, so the agent must map 'archiving' to the actual tool itself.

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