mailu_delete_user

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states irreversibility, but omits other important traits: whether it requires authentication, what happens to associated data (aliases, forwards), or what error responses occur. This is insufficient for a destructive operation.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences ('Supprime une boite mail. Irreversible.'). No superfluous words, and the critical point (irreversibility) is front-loaded.

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 tool's simplicity (one required parameter, no output schema), the description conveys the essential purpose. However, it lacks completeness about return behavior or expected outcomes (e.g., success confirmation), and does not mention any side effects beyond irreversibility.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters and already describes 'email' as 'Adresse email de la boite'. The description does not add additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('Supprime une boite mail') and the resource ('boite mail'). It uses a specific verb and resource, and the irreversibility note distinguishes it from other user-related tools like create or update.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The irreversibility note implies caution but lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., admin permissions) or when not to use it (e.g., if a soft delete is available).

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