passkey_delete_passkey

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 discloses almost nothing: not whether deletion is permanent, whether re-authentication is required, or whether the passkey's owner can be anyone. The only useful behavioral clue elsewhere is in the 'confirm' schema description, which the tool description never references.

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?

Three short lines with no padding and the verb-resource front-loaded. The 'Tags: Passkeys Controller' line is filler that does not help selection, which keeps it out of the top score.

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 and no output schema, the description should at minimum disclose irreversibility and the confirm/preview mechanism documented in the sibling schema field. Neither appears, leaving the agent under-informed for an irreversible 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 coverage is 50%. The body.id parameter is undocumented in both the description and the schema, and the description never explains the required 'body' wrapper versus the 'confirm' preview flag. It adds nothing beyond what the schema already shows.

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 (Delete) and resource (a passkey by ID), and the HTTP route DELETE /api/passkeys makes the operation unambiguous. It does not differentiate from siblings like passkey_update_passkey, though the verb 'Delete' provides clear separation from the read/registration/update siblings.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is named. The DELETE route plus 'by ID' implies permanent removal of a specific record, but the agent gets no hint about prerequisites (must the passkey belong to the caller?) or what happens afterward.

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