delete_sub_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so safety is pre-established. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the proxy login stops working and the deletion is irreversible. It does not cover permissions or downstream side effects beyond login access.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the most important consequences. Every sentence adds information with zero waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a simple destructive tool, the description covers the essential effect and irreversibility, though it omits where to obtain the sub_user_id and whether any preconditions apply.

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%, and the description does not explain the required sub_user_id parameter at all. With only a self-explanatory name and no mention of format, source (e.g., list_sub_users), or constraints, it fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Delete a sub-user') and clarifies the concrete effect on the proxy login. It is clearly distinct from siblings like update_sub_user or create_sub_user, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is implied by the destructive verb and the warning that the action cannot be undone. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus update_sub_user or other alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites such as requiring an existing sub-user ID.

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