users_external_id_remove

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Remove' and 'Cleans up,' implying mutation, but does not disclose whether removal is irreversible, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what happens if any IDs are not deprecated.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scoped by the deprecated-ID qualifier. There is no filler and the reader immediately knows the tool's focus.

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?

The parameter schema is fully documented and no output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values. However, for a destructive mutation with no annotations, the description should provide more behavioral context such as irreversibility or prerequisite state.

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 input schema already documents apiKey, external_ids, and restEndpoint. The description adds only general context about deprecated IDs and does not supplement the parameter meanings beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific verb and resource: remove deprecated external IDs that were previously renamed. It clearly distinguishes the operation from a rename or user delete by emphasizing old, deprecated IDs, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tool users_external_id_rename.

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?

Usage is implied as post-rename cleanup, since the tool targets 'deprecated external IDs that were previously renamed.' However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative for cases where IDs are still active.

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