vk_delete_user_9716beec9c6e

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses authentication, the absence of a typical request body, and parameter alias conventions. However, it does not state the irreversible nature of the deletion or what happens on success/failure, leaving room for uncertainty.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence provides useful operational detail (endpoint, body, params, auth). It is slightly wordy but each clause earns its place, earning a score above average but not perfect.

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 simple, one-parameter delete endpoint, the description covers purpose, endpoint, request body, parameter handling, and authentication. It lacks return value/error info, but given there is no output schema and complexity is low, the description is nearly complete. A 4 reflects that it could mention deletion effects but is otherwise solid.

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 already documents the single 'id' parameter with 100% coverage. The description adds that path/query parameters are top-level and that camelCase/snake_case aliases are accepted, which is helpful but not essential. It does not significantly enhance the meaning of the id itself beyond the schema's 'Token ID Required'.

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 opens with 'Delete a caldav token by id,' which is a specific verb-resource pair. It further identifies the exact REST endpoint (DELETE /user/settings/token/caldav/{id}), making it unambiguous and distinct from the many sibling delete tools.

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 context for when to use this tool: as a raw REST proxy for deleting a caldav token. It notes that no request body is usually needed and mentions auth requirements, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions. That fits 'clear context, no exclusions' (score 4).

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