delete_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait ('deletion is scheduled... enters DELETE_PENDING state first') and the waiting period. It does not state whether deletion is reversible during pending, whether associated aliases are affected, or any permission requirements, leaving some behavior implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded, with an Args block that is easy to parse. Minor redundancy exists between the opening 'Call this when...' and the closing 'Schedule a key for deletion,' but no sentence is wasted.

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 destructive/scheduling operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core semantics and parameters but omits surrounding context such as cancellation/restore path, final permanence, and effects on aliases or usage. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%, but the description fully compensates: key_identifier is defined as 'Key ARN or alias' and delete_key_in_days is given a range (3-180) and default (7). Both parameters become semantically meaningful beyond their raw types.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Schedule a key for deletion' and 'decommissioning a test key or retiring a key.' This clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling alias operations like delete_alias.

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 opening sentence gives concrete triggers: 'when decommissioning a test key or retiring a key that is no longer needed.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, so it does not reach 5, but the intended use context is clear.

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