delete_user_referrer

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

Despite no annotations, the description comprehensively covers behavioral traits: what it clears/destroys, what it does not touch, error handling (422 mapping), auth restrictions (service_role key only, not OAuth), and the dry_run/confirmed workflow.

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 moderately long but well-structured with front-loaded main action. It efficiently communicates endpoint, workflow, error handling, and auth. Every sentence adds necessary detail, though could be slightly tightened.

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 no output schema, the description explains error handling and idempotent behavior well. It covers dry_run/confirmed workflow and auth. Lacks explicit success response structure, but overall sufficiently complete for a deletion tool.

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 60%, but the description adds value by providing an example dry_run, explaining the workflow for dry_run and confirmed, and clarifying the user_identifier fields. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions on two parameters.

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 tool's purpose: 'Remove admin-imported user_referrers row' and includes the HTTP endpoint. It distinguishes from sibling 'remove_user_from_referral_code' by specifying when to use that alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (removing imported referrer) and when not to use (if user has referral code redemptions, use sibling). Also provides guidance on idempotent retry mapping and auth requirements.

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