browser_passkey_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'delete' without revealing whether the action is permanent, whether it affects only the current browser session, whether it can fail if the id is invalid, or what the return value/error behavior is. For a destructive mutation, this is a significant gap.

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 description is a single sentence that is immediately actionable and front-loaded with the verb 'delete' and resource. Zero filler words; every word contributes to the meaning. It is an example of efficient, high-value description writing.

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 simple one-parameter destructive tool, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and id format. However, it omits any explanation of success/error semantics (e.g., does it return a boolean, throw if not found?), reversibility, or scope (browser-specific passkey store). With no output schema and no annotations, these gaps hurt completeness for an agent making a real call.

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?

The schema provides a bare 'id' string with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates by specifying that the id must be a base64url credential id, which is crucial for correct invocation. It adds meaningful format information that the schema lacks, though it does not explain where to obtain the id or any length restrictions.

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 action (delete), a specific resource (one virtual passkey), and the exact identifier format (base64url credential id). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like browser_passkey_create, browser_passkey_list, and browser_passkey_install. An agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from related operations.

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?

The description implies usage ('use this to delete a passkey') but does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the passkey needing to exist or the id being obtainable from browser_passkey_list. There is no 'when-not-to-use' guidance, leaving some inference required from the name and description.

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