github_apps_delete_token

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

The description only says 'delete', implying mutation. No disclosure of side effects (e.g., token becomes invalid immediately, impacts on app access), irreversibility, or success criteria. Without annotations, this is insufficient.

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 – concise but under-specified. It does not waste words, but lacks structure to highlight key details.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description should state what the response indicates (e.g., 204 No Content). It does not, leaving the agent unsure about success confirmation.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it merely repeats 'client_id'. No explanation of what client_id represents or how to obtain it.

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 resource (app token), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like `github_apps_reset_token` or `github_apps_revoke_installation_access_token`, which also deal with token lifecycle.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent has no context to distinguish it from other token-related operations among the many sibling tools.

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