user_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry full behavioral disclosure. It successfully describes success/failure return patterns ('Returns confirmation on success', 'Returns a not-found error'). However, it omits critical behavioral details for a destructive operation: whether deletion is permanent, cascading effects on user's tasks/process instances, or permission requirements.

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 sentences with zero waste. Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. Return behavior is logically sequenced in subsequent sentences. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers basic success/error behaviors but leaves gaps regarding side effects (cascading deletions, what happens to orphaned tasks) and reversibility. Adequate but not comprehensive for the risk profile of the operation.

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?

Input schema contains 0 parameters (empty properties object), establishing baseline 4 per scoring rules. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at the identification mechanism, though this parameter appears to be path-based rather than in the input body.

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 uses a specific verb ('Delete'), specific resource ('Operaton user account'), and identifies the key ('by ID'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling user tools (user_create, user_updateProfile, user_list, etc.) by stating the destructive deletion operation.

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?

Provides implicit usage guidance by describing the error case ('not-found error if the user does not exist'), implying the tool requires an existing user ID. However, lacks explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or warnings about when deletion might fail or impact other resources.

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