delete_mcptoken

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about irreversibility, permissions/scopes required, cascade effects, or whether the token can be recovered, which are critical for a destructive operation. 'By ID' is the only added detail.

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?

A single short sentence with the action and identifier front-loaded and zero wasted words. It is efficiently structured, though the brevity reflects missing content rather than tight editing.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum disclose irreversibility and expected permissions. It omits all of this, leaving the agent without the context needed to invoke a delete 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 description coverage is 100% with a single well-documented 'id' parameter, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's 'by ID' merely restates what the schema already declares, adding no syntax or format guidance. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb 'Delete' and resource 'MCP Token', and the verb alone differentiates it from siblings like get_mcptoken, create_mcptoken, and update_mcptoken. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, but the action is unambiguous.

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 on when to use this versus list_mcptoken or get_mcptoken, and no mention that deletion is likely irreversible. The agent gets no context on prerequisites or conditions.

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