user_passkey_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only restates the HTTP verb. It does not disclose the destructive/irreversible nature of a passkey deletion, the rw-mode confirm preview requirement, or any auth/permission constraints beyond what the schema hints at.

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 content is short but poorly structured: it leads with a raw path, mixes Russian and English, and includes low-value metadata lines ('Spec: user') instead of front-loading a clear purpose. Minimal but not efficient.

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 omits irreversible effects, confirm semantics, and permission scope. The schema covers parameters, but the behavioral and routing context an agent needs is missing.

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 the schema already explains credential_id, user_id (admin-on-behalf), and confirm (preview gate). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the identifier mention, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 is largely the raw HTTP method and endpoint (DELETE /user/passkey) plus a Russian gloss ('delete a registered Passkey by identifier'), so the purpose is recoverable but not stated as a clean verb+resource with SPA-appropriate framing. It distinguishes from siblings only through the word Passkey, since user_passkey_get/post/register share the resource.

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 statement of when to use this deletion versus alternatives such as user_passkey_register_post (re-register) or user_auth_passkey_post (auth), nor any note that this is scoped to the current user. The tag/spec lines ('Tag: Passkey Настройки', 'Spec: user') are metadata, not usage guidance.

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