users_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It correctly discloses the critical trait that deletion is permanent and cannot be undone, which is valuable. It still omits other important behavioral details such as required permissions, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, and any rate or batch limits.

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 core action. The destructive warning and compliance use case follow immediately, and there is no filler or repetition.

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, unannotated tool with five parameters and no output schema, the description covers the what, the irreversibility, and one use case. It does not compensate for the schema's missing required identifiers or explain the API key and endpoint configuration, so an agent could still invoke it incorrectly by omitting user identifiers.

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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, such as which identifier type to use or whether at least one of braze_ids, external_ids, or user_aliases is required. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 user profiles from Braze. This clearly distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like users_export or aggregation siblings like kpi_dau, but it does not explicitly differentiate from scim_users_delete, which is another deletion endpoint in the sibling list.

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?

Provides a clear intended context: 'Use for GDPR/CCPA compliance.' That gives an agent a strong signal for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not state when not to use it or name any alternative, such as using users_alias_update or users_external_id_remove for narrower identifier cleanup.

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