users_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Remove a user account' and 'Confirmation of deletion' but fails to disclose whether the deletion is permanent, whether it cascades to related data, or if special permissions are required. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. The Args/Returns formatting is slightly verbose but acceptable for API documentation. Every sentence serves a purpose, though the Returns line could be more explicit. It is appropriately sized and readable.

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?

This is a destructive tool with no annotations, yet the description only states what it does and gives a generic confirmation. It lacks details about side effects, reversibility, permissions, or error cases. Although an output schema exists, the description's return value is vague ('Confirmation of deletion') and doesn't cover operational nuances. Given the tool's severity, the description is incomplete.

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?

The description explicitly explains the only parameter, user_id, as 'The ID of the user to delete'. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by adding meaning beyond the schema's bare type/title. It would earn a 5 if it also described any validation or formatting rules, but as it stands it's clear and sufficient.

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 'Remove a user account' which is a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from tools like users_get and users_modify. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives but the domain prefix [Users/Management] adds context. A 4 is appropriate because it's clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The description only explains the action itself. It does not mention any exclusions, preconditions, or situations where a different tool would be more appropriate.

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