Удаление пользователя кластера

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

The annotation destructiveHint is false, yet the description explicitly states 'Действие необратимо' (action is irreversible). This is a direct contradiction: a delete operation that is irreversible is destructive. The description does add the irreversibility warning, but the contradiction with the annotation is a serious issue, so the score is 1 per rubric.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and the HTTP endpoint, the second warns about irreversibility. It is front-loaded with the key verb and contains no filler or redundant information.

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 simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description conveys the essential behavior and the important warning about irreversibility. However, it lacks details such as prerequisites, potential side effects on associated resources, or what happens if the admin does not exist. The annotation contradiction also undermines completeness.

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% with clear descriptions for both db_cluster_id and admin_id. The description does not add new parameter information beyond the schema, but the endpoint path in the description reinforces the roles of the two parameters. The baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with the verb 'Удаляет' (deletes) and specifies the resource 'пользователя кластера базы данных' (database cluster user), clearly distinguishing it from tools like delete_database_cluster or update_database_admin. The inclusion of the exact HTTP endpoint further narrows the scope to a specific admin within a specific cluster.

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 makes the action obvious but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as update_database_admin or create_database_admin. The intended usage is implied by the name and endpoint rather than stated with clear context or exclusions.

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