users_delete_instance

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 for a destructive mutation. The word 'DELETE' signals a write/destructive operation, but there is no disclosure of irreversibility, required permissions/roles, cascade effects on related resources (e.g. visible apps), or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a delete endpoint.

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?

It is very short and front-loaded, which is good, but the parenthetical '(DELETE /v1/users/{id})' simply repeats the text immediately preceding it word for word, so half the description is pure redundancy rather than earned content.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain consequences and prerequisites. Instead it only echoes the route, leaving the agent without the context needed to call this safely.

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 the single required 'id' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The path template /v1/users/{id} does add one useful fact — that 'id' is a path parameter and identifies the user to delete — but no format, example, or constraint detail beyond the 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?

The description names a specific verb (DELETE) and resource path (/v1/users/{id}), so an agent can infer it deletes a user by id. However, it is essentially a restatement of the HTTP method and path with a redundant duplicate parenthetical, and it does nothing to distinguish this tool from the many other *_delete_instance siblings in the namespace.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as users_update_instance or the visible-apps delete operations. The agent is left to infer everything about applicability from the name alone.

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