authDeleteUser

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Delete a specific user' implies a destructive mutation, but it fails to describe critical behaviors: whether deletion is permanent, if it requires admin permissions, what happens to associated data, or any error conditions. For a destructive operation, this lack of detail is a significant gap.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Delete') and resource ('user'), making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity (a destructive user deletion operation), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like permissions, irreversibility, or response format, which are crucial for an agent to use this tool safely and effectively. The high schema coverage doesn't compensate for these missing contextual elements.

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%, with the single parameter 'userId' documented as 'The user id or email address.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a specific user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other deletion tools in the sibling list (like authDeleteBearerToken, fabricsDeleteFabric, etc.), which would require specifying it's for user accounts specifically rather than other entities.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist), consequences (e.g., irreversible action), or when to choose authDeleteUser over other deletion tools like authDeleteBearerToken or fabricsDeleteFabric. This leaves the agent without context for proper tool selection.

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