security-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 of behavioral disclosure. 'Removes' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't specify whether this is reversible, what permissions are required, if it affects associated data (e.g., roles or items), or what happens on success/failure. This leaves critical behavioral traits unclear for a security-related tool.

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 with no wasted words, making it easy to parse. However, it's overly terse for a destructive security tool, lacking necessary details that would help an agent use it correctly. While concise, it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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 security operation), lack of annotations, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, parameter details, usage context, or expected outcomes. For such a tool, more comprehensive guidance is needed to ensure safe and correct invocation.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description adds no information about the 'identity' parameter. It doesn't explain what 'identity' represents (e.g., username, email, or user ID), its format, or examples. For a tool with low schema coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meaning ambiguous.

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 'Removes the Sitecore user' clearly states the action (removes) and resource (Sitecore user), but it's somewhat vague about what 'removes' entails (e.g., deletion, deactivation, or removal from a system). It distinguishes from siblings like 'security-disable-user' and 'security-unlock-user' by focusing on removal, but lacks specificity about the scope or permanence of the action.

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 or be unlocked), exclusions (e.g., cannot remove currently logged-in users), or related tools like 'security-disable-user' or 'security-remove-role-member'. Without this, an agent might misuse it in inappropriate contexts.

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