Delete a Scaleway IAM User

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

Annotations already signal destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds rich behavioral context: the operation is permanent, requires confirmation, has an OWNER protection guard, reveals API scoping to guest-users only, and discloses that the happy path is untested. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 compact at four sentences with the core action front-loaded. Each sentence adds value (permanence, confirm requirement, two guards, testing caveat). The 'Live-probed' sentence is slightly verbose but still earns its place by indicating reliability.

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 no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: the irreversible nature, the mandatory confirm parameter, two explicit failure modes (owner refusal and API scoping rejection), and testing transparency. It does not describe the success response format, but that is acceptable given the lack of an output schema.

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 50% (confirm has a description, user_id does not). The description mentions 'Requires confirm=true,' which reinforces the schema's const=true for confirm but adds no new meaning. It offers no additional context for the user_id parameter beyond what the schema already provides (uuid, required). The description does not compensate for the missing schema description on user_id.

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 'PERMANENTLY remove a User from this Organization,' using a specific verb (remove) and resource (User) with an explicit scope (Organization). Among sibling tools, there are other IAM user actions like lock, unlock, update, delete_mfa_otp, etc., but no other delete user tool, so this is well-differentiated.

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 explicitly states the required confirm=true prerequisite and details two guards (refuses to delete the OWNER, API endpoint guest-scoping). It implicitly tells the agent when deletion will fail, though it does not mention alternative tools like lock_user for temporary disablement or when not to use this tool.

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