authentication_settings_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is destructive ('Delete all authentication settings'), requires specific permissions ('Instance Administrator'), and has a limitation (default config cannot be deleted). It does not mention irreversibility or error handling on default config attempts, but the core behavior is transparent for a delete endpoint.

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 uses a structured format with title, note, permissions, endpoint, and example. Every sentence contributes value: the note explains the default configuration limitation, the permission line is essential for authorization, and the example illustrates the request body. It is slightly verbose with endpoint details but not wasteful.

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 delete tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, permission, limitations, and example. It does not explain what happens on success or if the default config is targeted, but those are not strictly required given the simplicity. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema has a nested request_data object with a domain property, and the schema description for domain is present but context reports 0% coverage. The tool description compensates by explicitly stating the domain identifies which settings to delete and provides an example request body. However, the example uses 'str' as a placeholder and does not clarify domain format or constraints, so it only provides marginal additional meaning.

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 tool 'Delete authentication settings by domain' and expands to 'Delete all authentication settings for the specified domain.' This provides a specific verb (delete), resource (authentication settings), and scope (by domain), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like authentication_settings_update or authentication_settings_get_settings.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when all settings for a domain need to be removed) and includes critical exclusions: the default configuration cannot be deleted, and Instance Administrator permissions are required. It does not explicitly mention alternatives (e.g., update instead of delete), but the context is clear and the constraints are meaningful.

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