paymenter_delete_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses permanence and irreversibility, which is the single most important trait for a mutation tool, but says nothing about cascading effects on related resources (orders, services, tickets) or required permissions.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, with the irreversible warning front-loaded alongside the action. Nothing is padded or redundant.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is deleted and that it cannot be undone. It falls short only on downstream impact and authorization expectations, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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% with a single self-documented user_id parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional semantics such as accepted ID formats or whether cross-account IDs are valid.

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 ('delete') and resource ('a user account') plus the source system, and the resource noun cleanly separates it from sibling delete tools like paymenter_delete_order and paymenter_delete_invoice. An agent can route to it without opening the schema.

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 only implied: the tool is for removing a user permanently. It never says when to prefer this over alternatives (e.g., suspending or deactivating a user) or what prerequisite state the account must be in, and no sibling is named as the non-destructive option.

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