remove_ipmi_user

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety profile is largely covered. The description adds the 'temporary' qualifier, which reconciles reasonably with destructiveHint=false (removing a temp account is not data destruction), but it discloses nothing about the confirm gate, permissions, or reversibility.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the purpose is stated immediately. The parenthetical API identifier is the only non-earning element.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, so the terse description is nearly sufficient. However, a mutating removal tool with a required confirm flag would benefit from one line on prerequisites or the follow-up state.

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 'id' (Server ID) and 'confirm' (must be true to run) are already fully documented in the schema. The description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 ('Remove a temporary IPMI user') and scopes it to temporary users, which implicitly distinguishes it from the add_ipmi_user sibling. The trailing '(eq/remove_ipmi_user)' is an API-name restatement that adds no selection value.

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 on when to use this versus add_ipmi_user or reset_ipmi, and no stated prerequisites (e.g., an IPMI user must exist, correct server id required). The agent must infer context entirely from the name.

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