delete_user

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose one meaningful trait: the admin-only authorization requirement. However, it says nothing about irreversibility, whether the deletion cascades to the user's websites/team memberships/shares, or whether any confirmation step exists — all critical 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?

One short clause that is entirely front-loaded with the action and resource; nothing is wasted. It is efficient, though the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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 an irreversible, admin-restricted mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is too thin. An agent learns only that it deletes a user and needs admin rights — not what is destroyed alongside the user, whether the operation can be undone, or what the response confirms.

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?

Single parameter (userId) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents that a user UUID is required. The description adds no formatting, lookup, or validation guidance beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline for a fully-described one-parameter tool.

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?

Specific verb + resource ("Delete a user") that clearly separates it from the other delete_* siblings such as delete_team, delete_website, delete_report. The scope is unambiguous, though it does not explicitly name the sibling alternatives an agent might confuse it with.

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 only usage signal is the parenthetical "(admin only)", which is a permission prerequisite rather than guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over remove_team_user, update_user, or delete_team, nor any warning about prerequisites beyond admin rights.

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