remove_user

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds no further context about the nature of removal—whether it is permanent, whether it affects active sessions, or whether special permissions are required. It merely restates the operation without enriching the behavioral profile.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence with no wasted words. However, it is so terse that it borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication, missing opportunities to add essential context.

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 destructive tool with two parameters and no meaningful schema descriptions, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain the consequences of removal, what the 'device' parameter does, or whether the operation is scoped to a particular device. The annotations and schema leave too many gaps.

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 0% and the description does not compensate. The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (username, ID, etc.) or what the optional 'device' parameter controls, leaving both parameters ambiguous and underspecified.

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 'Removes a user' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (user), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like disable_user or disconnect_user, which also affect users in different ways.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as disable_user, disconnect_user, or even update_user. There is no mention of prerequisites, side effects, or whether removal is permanent versus reversible.

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