Account Users: Delete an Account User

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful auth context (Platform app API key header) and a language/digit-handling note, but it does not clarify whether the user is removed only from the account or deleted globally, which is a key behavioral distinction from gapify_platform_delete_user.

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 content is front-loaded with the action, endpoint, and auth, then lists body fields and a language note. It is reasonably tight, though the 'Destructive: this permanently deletes the resource' sentence largely repeats the destructiveHint annotation.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers the endpoint, auth, required body field, and language handling. It leaves important operational context unstated, such as the effect on the user's account membership versus global user deletion, and any error or not-found behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents user_id, account_id, and extra_body. The description confirms that user_id is a required body field and that extra_body accepts unlisted keys, but adds no format, constraint, or example beyond what the schema provides.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete an Account User') and even includes the HTTP method and endpoint, so the core action is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling gapify_platform_delete_user, which is a meaningful ambiguity given the similar name.

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 states the auth requirement and body fields but offers no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to alternatives like delete_user or delete_account. The agent must infer the selection context from the tool name alone.

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