ncloud_delete_mysql_users

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, setting a solid baseline. The description adds a valuable behavioral detail: the operation only executes when confirm=true, which is not captured in the annotations. The warning emoji also reinforces the destructive nature. No contradiction with annotations.

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, well-structured sentence. It front-loads the critical destructive warning, then states the action and the key execution requirement. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or irrelevant 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 low-complexity destructive operation with good annotations and fully described schema parameters, the description is adequate. It covers what is deleted and how to execute. It could theoretically mention consequences (e.g., irreversible loss) or prerequisites, but the destructive hint and confirm flag already convey the essential safety context.

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 100%, so the parameters are already fully documented. The description's mention of 'confirm=true' adds no new information beyond the schema's confirm parameter description. It doesn't elaborate on the user list or instance number further, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 action (delete), the resource (users from a Cloud DB for MySQL instance), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ncloud_delete_mysql_databases or ncloud_delete_mysql_instance. The tool name and description align perfectly, leaving 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 context on when to use the tool (to delete MySQL users) and includes an essential usage instruction: 'Set confirm=true to execute.' It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but for this straightforward destructive operation, the context is sufficient to guide an agent.

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