type.undefine_user

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. The description is only 4 words long and fails to disclose anything about side effects, required permissions, reversibility, or what happens to dependent data (e.g., functions using the type). The agent cannot assess safety or impact.

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?

While the description is extremely short (4 words), it qualifies as under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. It fails to convey necessary information, wasting the opportunity to add value. A true 5 would be concise yet informative (e.g., 'Remove a previously defined user type by name').

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 complexity of the domain (binary analysis with many type manipulation tools), no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, this description is severely incomplete. It provides no context about return values, error conditions, or the relationship to sibling tools like 'type.define_user' or 'type_library.*'.

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 has 2 required parameters ('name' and 'session_id') with zero schema description coverage (0%). The description does not mention any parameters or their semantics, leaving the agent with no understanding of what 'name' refers to (e.g., type name, user name) or how to obtain 'session_id'. This is a critical gap.

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 'Undefine a user type' is a tautology of the tool name 'type.undefine_user'. It does not specify what 'undefine' means in this context (e.g., remove a user-defined type, revert to default, or delete a type definition). It also fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'annotation.undefine_symbol' or 'annotation.undefine_data_var', which perform similar undefine operations on different resources.

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. Among many related sibling tools (e.g., 'type.define_user', 'type.rename'), there is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. It gives the agent no way to decide whether to invoke this tool or another undefine tool.

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