scim_delete_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the cascading side effect (removal from all groups) and the non-deterministic soft-vs-hard delete behavior driven by configuration, which an agent cannot learn from the annotations or schema.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the two behavioral facts that matter most. No filler, though the phrasing is clipped rather than polished.

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 delete with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is removed, the cascading group effect, and the variability of the operation. It omits only secondary details like permission requirements and the response shape after deletion.

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?

Only one parameter (user_id) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the ID's format or source, 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 ('Delete a SCIM user') and the SCIM qualifier implicitly separates it from the generic delete_user sibling. It also adds scope detail ('Removes the user from all groups'). It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer it over delete_user, but the intent is unambiguous.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance. With siblings like delete_user, scim_delete_group, and delete_group_users present, the description never clarifies which deletion tool applies to which resource, leaving the agent to infer 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.