Delete a user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds meaningful context beyond these by disclosing the two-step confirmation flow, the admin requirement, and the cascading removal of access grants. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the core effect, and the second explains the required prerequisite and two-call sequence. Highly efficient and front-loaded.

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 tool, the description covers the critical operational facts: admin requirement, confirmation token workflow, and the cascading effect on access grants. An output schema exists, so return values are covered. Nothing essential is missing.

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%, with both username and confirm_token already documented. The description reinforces the confirm_token workflow but does not add new parameter-level details beyond what the schema and call flow already imply, matching the baseline.

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 ('Removes'), a clear resource ('an account'), and the exact scope ('every access grant attached to it'). This distinguishes it unambiguously from sibling tools like delete_messages or manage_user_access.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: an admin account is required, and the tool must be called twice—first without the token to receive it, then again with it. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but for a distinct delete-user operation that is less critical.

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