remove_user

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a permission requirement ('[requires: users.remove]') and irreversibility ('permanently remove'). However, it does not describe side effects on the user's data, whether the action can be undone, or what the response looks like. This is minimal but meaningful disclosure.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the permission requirement and then the core action. It is concise, with no wasted words, and is well-structured for quick parsing by an agent.

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?

With one simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic action and permission. However, it lacks details on return values, error behavior, or consequences for the user's content, which are important for a destructive operation. Given the simplicity, it is sufficient but not complete.

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 schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'id' with description 'User ID'. The tool description does not add any additional semantic meaning to the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 tool's purpose: 'Permanently remove a user from the workspace.' The verb 'remove' is specific and the resource 'user' is explicit. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like suspend_user or invite_user by emphasizing 'permanently' and workspace 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 implies usage when permanent removal is intended, contrasting with suspension or role changes. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it. The word 'permanently' gives context that this is for deletion rather than temporary actions, providing clear context without formal exclusions.

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