remove_user_verification

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

The description adds no behavioral information beyond the annotations. It simply restates the operation implied by the name, with no mention of permissions, irreversibility, side effects, or return behavior. The openWorldHint: true annotation further underscores that additional effects are undisclosed.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though perhaps too sparse to convey meaningful guidance. Still, for this dimension it performs well.

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 low complexity (one parameter, clear schema, and annotations), the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks any context about preconditions, side effects, or what the tool returns, leaving some gaps in the overall picture.

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 sole parameter user_id is fully described in the schema as 'User ID', giving 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides adequate information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove user verification' uses a specific verb (remove) and resource (user verification), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like verify_user and remove_chat_verification by specifying 'user' rather than 'chat'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention verify_user or remove_chat_verification, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions under which removal is appropriate.

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