delete_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses that the tool is 'Disabled in read-only mode,' which is a useful constraint, but it does not mention irreversibility, permissions required, or side effects (e.g., revoking grants). For a destructive mutation, this is minimal. No contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 two short sentences, concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value, including the read-only note. No fluff, appropriate for the operation's simplicity.

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 delete operation with an output schema and full parameter docs, the description is adequate but not rich. It could mention what happens to associated grants or whether removal is permanent, but the read-only note and clear purpose provide a baseline. The existence of an output schema covers return-value expectations, so the description isn't fully incomplete.

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?

The schema covers both parameters (email and developer_id) with clear descriptions ('Email of the user to remove' and 'Developer account ID'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline for high coverage is 3. It does not compensate further, but it doesn't need to.

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 'Remove a user's access to a developer account.' This uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (user's access), and it distinguishes from sibling tools like update_user or create_user by focusing on removal. The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., delete_grant or update_user). It only implies use via 'Remove a user's access,' but lacks context such as prerequisites, reversibility, or when not to use it. The note about read-only mode is behavioral, not usage direction.

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