hedera_delete_token

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only notes the admin key requirement but omits critical details such as irreversibility, effect on associated tokens, or that the returned transaction is unsigned and must be submitted separately.

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 very concise at 8 words, but this conciseness sacrifices necessary information. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, yet incomplete for fully understanding the tool.

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 the tool has 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain what the tool returns, the full lifecycle (agent must sign and submit externally), or any side effects.

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 0%, and the description fails to explain any parameter. It does not clarify that 'tokenId' is the token to delete or that 'payerAccountId' is an optional fee payer. This leaves the agent without essential context for correct parameter usage.

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 ('build unsigned token deletion') and mentions a key requirement ('admin key to sign'), which clarifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'burn_token' or 'wipe_token', so it stops short of a 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 such as burn or wipe. It lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.

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