delete-user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a user' implies a destructive, irreversible mutation, but the description doesn't mention permission requirements, whether deletion is permanent, what happens to associated resources, or any confirmation steps. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is critically inadequate.

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 a single, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool name and efficiently communicates the core action without unnecessary elaboration.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters. The description fails to address critical context: what permissions are needed, whether deletion is reversible, what validation occurs, what the response looks like, or how it differs from other user-related tools. For a tool that permanently removes users, this level of incompleteness is dangerous.

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 input schema has 2 required parameters (clientId, idOrEmail) with 0% description coverage, meaning neither parameter is documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters represent, their format, or how they're used. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and usage.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and target resource ('a user from your instance'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from other deletion tools like delete-credential or delete-project, which would require specifying what distinguishes user deletion from other resource deletions.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like get-user (for viewing), create-users (for adding), and list-users (for listing), there's no indication of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or what happens to user data after deletion. The description simply states what it does without contextual guidance.

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