delete_current_user_application_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, what happens on success/failure, or what the response looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence that states the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the verb 'Delete' and specifies the resource clearly. There's zero waste, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

Given this is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial context: what 'current user' means (authentication context), how the specific key is identified (since there are no parameters), what the response contains, and any safety warnings. For a tool that permanently deletes a resource, this is inadequate.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it correctly implies no parameters are needed (it doesn't mention any). With 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description aligns with the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and the resource ('an application key owned by current user'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from similar deletion tools for other types of keys (like 'delete_api_key' or 'delete_application_key'), which would require explicit sibling differentiation for a score of 5.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to identify which key to delete), warn about irreversible deletion, or differentiate from other key deletion tools in the sibling list (e.g., 'delete_application_key' vs. 'delete_current_user_application_key'). This leaves the agent with insufficient context for proper tool selection.

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