ghl_user_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds OAuth scopes and a known issue about potential failure, but it contradicts the input schema by claiming 'no input field for userId', which undermines trust. The description provides misleading behavioral info.

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 includes a verbose known issue block up front, which is important but could be more concise. The core purpose 'Delete User' is clear, but the overall structure is not optimally concise.

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 delete tool with one parameter, the description provides endpoint details, OAuth scopes, and a known issue caveat. Annotations cover destructive and idempotent hints. No output schema exists, so completeness is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema covers the only parameter (userId) at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds confusing information by stating the parameter is missing, despite the schema including it. This ambiguity reduces the value added beyond the schema.

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 'Delete User' and provides the HTTP DELETE endpoint, making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ghl_user_get, ghl_user_update, and ghl_user_create by specifying a delete operation.

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 implies when to use (to delete a user) but does not explicitly state exclusions or alternatives. It mentions required OAuth scopes (users.write) which adds some context, but no comparison to other user tools is provided.

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