delete_api_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it only implies permanence via 'Delete ... from the Database'. It omits whether the deletion is reversible, what auth/permissions are required, whether the token's sessions are immediately invalidated, and what the response looks like. The 'write api token' keyword also muddies the destructive nature of the operation.

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 core sentence is front-loaded, but it is buried under a repetitive SEO keyword dump ('delete_api_token, delete api token, remove api token, destroy api token, write api token...') that includes an unrelated term ('mealie') and restates the tool name many times.

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 destructive mutation with no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition should disclose auth requirements, irreversibility, and side effects. None of that is present, leaving the agent without the information needed to call this safely.

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 0% and the single parameter 'token_id' is undocumented in both schema and description. The endpoint template at least reveals that token_id is a path parameter identifying the target token, which is marginal added meaning, but format, source, or acquisition of the ID is never explained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete api token') and even pins the exact endpoint (DELETE /api/users/api-tokens/{token_id}), so the agent knows precisely what the call does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like create_api_token or get_token, leaving that differentiation to the reader.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., refresh_token vs delete_api_token), and no prerequisites or warnings about irreversible token revocation. The keyword list adds noise rather than usage context.

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