v2_delete_user

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description adds substantial behavior: the two refusal conditions (self and Owner/root), the confirm:true gate, and the READ-ONLY MODE fallback that returns the payload instead of sending it. This is far beyond what the annotations convey.

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 destructive verb and resource are front-loaded, and the rationale for being the sole account operation is purposeful rather than filler. The bracketed mode note is compact, though the rationale sentence could be tightened slightly.

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 mutation tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, it supplies the key prerequisites, refusals, and mode behavior. The one gap is the undocumented dryRun parameter, which the description does not reconcile with the read-only mode note.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains confirm:true and implicitly constrains username (self/Owner/root rejected), but the dryRun parameter is never addressed and its interaction with the read-only mode is left unclear.

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?

States a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (controller account) up front, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the rest of the account surface by noting it is 'the only account operation this server has'. An agent can place it relative to v2_users and the v2_set_* siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Gives concrete usage constraints: it refuses the logged-in account and Owner/root accounts, and requires confirm:true. It does not name an alternative tool, but there is no competing delete/account-mutation sibling, so the routing is unambiguous.

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