vk_post_user_273bd04e9f7b

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses the email trigger and auth requirement, but contradicts the input schema by calling the body field 'optional' when the schema marks it as required. It also does not explain the response format or any other side effects beyond the email trigger.

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 concise overall but contains redundancy: 'Request the deletion of the user' and 'Requests the deletion of the current user' are essentially repetitive. It is structured with useful technical details but could be tighter.

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 tool, the description covers the email flow and authentication, which is reasonable. However, the optionality contradiction and lack of information about the response or post-request behavior leave notable gaps, especially given no output schema or annotations.

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 coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3, but the description actively misleads by describing the required body as 'optional'. While it adds info about parameter aliases and JSON payload, the contradiction significantly reduces the helpfulness for correctly invoking the tool.

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: 'Request the deletion of the user' and identifies the exact endpoint 'POST /user/deletion/request'. This is specific, uses a clear verb+resource structure, and distinguishes it from sibling tools that target other user-related endpoints.

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 on when to use the tool: it explains the email confirmation flow and that authentication is required. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which would have made it fully explicit.

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