Zitadel MCP

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. While annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, the description emphasizes 'This action cannot be undone' and specifies the confirm parameter requirement. It doesn't contradict annotations but enhances understanding of the tool's irreversible nature and safety mechanism.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, with every sentence earning its place. The first sentence states the core action, the second warns about irreversibility, the third specifies the confirm requirement, and the fourth provides alternative guidance—all in just four sentences with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's destructive nature and lack of output schema, the description provides strong contextual completeness. It covers the irreversible consequence, confirm requirement, and alternative tool. While it doesn't detail return values (no output schema exists), it adequately addresses the critical aspects needed for safe usage of this high-stakes operation.

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 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already fully documents both parameters. The description adds minimal semantic context by mentioning 'Requires confirm: true', which slightly clarifies the confirm parameter's purpose beyond the schema's description. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('permanently delete a user') and resource ('user'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'zitadel_deactivate_user' which is mentioned as an alternative. It goes beyond just restating the name/title by emphasizing the irreversible nature of the action.

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 explicitly provides when to use this tool vs. alternatives by stating 'Consider using zitadel_deactivate_user instead (reversible)', offering clear guidance on when to choose this destructive option over a reversible one. It also specifies a prerequisite with 'Requires confirm: true'.

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