hmc_delete_user

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

The annotation declares destructiveHint=true, but the description adds crucial behavioral details beyond that: it is 'permanently removes the account — irreversible', returns a confirmation string, and operates synchronously ('no job to poll'). This goes beyond what the annotation alone conveys, providing rich context about the operation's effects and return behavior.

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 front-loaded with the main action in the first sentence, followed by two concise additional sentences covering irreversibility, pre-check, and return behavior. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant or fluff content.

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 single-parameter destructive tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, irreversibility, prerequisite verification, and synchronous vs. async behavior. It is complete and self-sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by identifying the parameter as 'username' and recommending verification via hmc_users(name=...). This adds semantic meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema, though it doesn't detail constraints like case sensitivity or format.

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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Delete an HMC user account by username.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like hmc_create_user, hmc_modify_user, and hmc_users. No ambiguity.

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 clear usage context by instructing to 'Confirm the username with hmc_users(name=...)' before calling and notes the operation is immediate with no job to poll. This implies when it is appropriate (deleting a user after verification) and sets expectations, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternate tools.

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