api_tokens_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 does disclose the meaningful auth requirement (admin JWT only). It does not state that deletion is irreversible, what happens to the token's sessions, or the confirm/preview behavior, so the disclosure is partial.

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?

It is short and front-loads the action and route, with the auth caveat following immediately. The trailing 'Tags: API Tokens Controller' line is controller metadata that does not earn its place, a minor blemish.

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, no-annotation, no-output-schema operation, the description covers the auth gate and the schema covers 'confirm', but it omits any warning about irreversibility or side effects. It is adequate but not complete for a delete 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'uuid' and 'confirm' are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Delete API token') plus the exact route 'DELETE /api/tokens/{uuid}', which unambiguously separates it from siblings like api_tokens_create_api_token and api_tokens_get_api_tokens. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the action is specific and self-identifying.

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?

It gives an important usage constraint: the endpoint is forbidden via API-key and requires an admin JWT-token. However, it offers no when-to-use vs when-not guidance relative to alternatives, and no prerequisites around the required 'confirm' preview step.

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