auth_delete_user

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. Beyond the word "Delete", it discloses nothing about irreversibility, whether the operation is idempotent or errors on an unknown uid, or what identity/permission context the emulator requires (the 'accounts:delete' API hint is not explained).

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scoped with "one" and "by uid". Nothing is wasted, though the parenthetical endpoint is only marginally useful to an agent.

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 tool is structurally simple (one required string, no output schema), so the description is nearly sufficient. The remaining gap is consequential for a destructive, un-annotated operation: no warning about permanence or the safer sibling alternatives.

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 uid parameter is already documented. The description restates that deletion is keyed on uid but adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Delete one Auth emulator account by uid", with the underlying emulator endpoint (accounts:delete). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like auth_list_users or auth_get_user, though it never contrasts itself with the near-neighbor auth_disable_user.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus auth_disable_user or auth_revoke_tokens, which are the obvious alternatives for the same resource. The agent is left to infer that deletion is the permanent option and that disable/revoke are non-destructive substitutes.

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