user_delete

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

With destructiveHint=true already in annotations, the description still adds significant value by disclosing that deletion is permanent, that access is immediately revoked, and crucially that historical data and previous actions are retained for audit. This goes well beyond what the annotations signal and sets appropriate expectations for a destructive operation. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences, each earning its place: the first says what happens, the second covers immediacy and permanence, and the third covers audit retention. Immediately front-loaded with the core action, no redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete: it covers the action, consequences, and data-retention policy. It's missing minor details like behavior for non-existent IDs or partial-failure semantics, but these are largely optional given the tool's simplicity.

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% ('User IDs to delete.'), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add any extra meaning about the parameter beyond what the schema already states, which is fine in this case because the schema fully documents the single parameter.

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 states a specific verb and resource — 'Delete users from Zabbix' — leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does. It differentiates itself from sibling tools like item_delete and trigger_delete by naming 'users' as the target, even though the system context is embedded in the product 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 usage is implied rather than explicit: the agent must infer from 'Delete users' when to invoke this over user_create or user_update. There's no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or mention of alternatives. However, the destructive nature and purpose are clear enough that the omission is not confusing.

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