MCP YAML API

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

Annotations already provide strong behavioral hints (destructiveHint: true, idempotentHint: true, openWorldHint: true), so the bar is lower. The description doesn't contradict these annotations, and while it doesn't add much beyond them, it implicitly supports the destructive nature by stating 'Delete'. However, it lacks additional context like permission requirements or irreversible consequences.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 high complexity (destructive operation) and lack of output schema, the description is minimal. Annotations cover safety and idempotency, but the description doesn't address return values, error conditions, or user impact. It's adequate as a basic descriptor but incomplete for informed usage.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description mentions 'by ID', which adds meaning by clarifying that the 'id' parameter refers to a user identifier, but it doesn't specify format (e.g., UUID, email) or constraints. This partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves gaps.

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 verb ('Delete') and resource ('a user by ID'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'replaceUser' or 'updateUser' which might also involve user modifications, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'replaceUser' or 'updateUser', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist) or exclusions. It's a basic statement with no contextual usage information.

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