bookstack_users_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool deletes a user account, implying a destructive, irreversible mutation, but doesn't specify critical details like required permissions, whether deletion is permanent or reversible, error conditions (e.g., if user doesn't exist), or what happens to migrated content. The migration option is mentioned but without behavioral context (e.g., what content is transferred).

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 that front-loads the core action ('Delete a user account') and adds a key feature ('with option to migrate content ownership'). There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating primary action from optional behavior).

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 complexity (destructive mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like permissions, irreversibility, error handling, or response format, which are critical for safe invocation. The migration feature is mentioned but underspecified, leaving gaps in understanding the tool's full context.

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 parameters ('id' and 'migrate_ownership_id') documented in the schema. The description adds marginal value by implying 'migrate_ownership_id' is for transferring content ownership, but doesn't elaborate on semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what 'content ownership' entails, default behavior if omitted). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Delete a user account') and resource ('user account'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'bookstack_users_list' or 'bookstack_users_update' by specifying deletion. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'bookstack_users_delete' (itself) or other destructive operations like 'bookstack_recycle_bin_delete_permanently' in terms of scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., user must exist, permissions required), when not to use it (e.g., for temporary deactivation), or refer to related tools like 'bookstack_users_update' for modifications instead of deletion. The optional migration parameter hints at a use case but lacks explicit context.

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