delete_user

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

Annotations only declare destructiveHint=true; the description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing the irreversible nature and the side effect of removing all group memberships. It still omits auth/permission requirements and any error or not-found behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Three terse sentences, permanence and irreversibility front-loaded, with the side effect trailing. Every clause carries information and none is wasted.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers intent, irreversibility, and the membership side effect. The only gap is usage routing against the many sibling delete/user tools, which for a simple destructive call is a minor omission.

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 coverage is 100% for the single user_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no identifier-format or scoping detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Permanently delete a user') with a permanence qualifier. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling scim_delete_user, leaving the agent to guess which delete applies to a given ID scheme.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus scim_delete_user or delete_group_users, and no prerequisites (permissions, target state) are stated. The destructive intent is implied by the text but no routing guidance is offered.

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