delete_user

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the endpoint — it doesn't mention irreversibility, cascade effects on the user's owned resources, or required admin rights, which is the added value expected when annotations are present.

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?

Two short fragments with zero padding, and the core verb is front-loaded. It is efficient but borders on under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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 user-deletion tool with no output schema, the description is too thin: it omits whether deletion is permanent, what happens to related resources, and any authorization prerequisites. Annotations cover the read/write and destructive flags, but the operational context an agent needs is missing.

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?

One required parameter with 0% schema description coverage. The path fragment "/users/{user_id}" hints that user_id identifies the target, but no format, range, or sourcing guidance is added beyond what the raw name implies, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Deletes user") and even names the HTTP endpoint, so the operation is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings like delete_project_user or disable_user_totp, leaving an agent to infer scope from the name alone.

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 tool versus alternatives (e.g., disable_user_totp, delete_project_user, or update_user to deactivate). The description offers no preconditions such as whether the user must be empty of projects first.

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