mess_delete_auth_key

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

Annotations provide hints (destructive=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, readOnly=false), and the description adds valuable context: it specifies deletion is by name, returns JSON status 204 on success, and mentions auth via 'auth_key/session.' This clarifies the destructive nature and success behavior beyond annotations, though it doesn't detail error cases or rate limits.

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 front-loaded with the core action, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the Args section could be slightly more concise by integrating details into the main text.

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's complexity (destructive operation with auth), annotations cover safety hints, and the description adds key behavioral details (deletion by name, success response). With an output schema likely handling return values, it's mostly complete, but could improve by mentioning idempotency or error scenarios.

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%, but the description compensates partially: it explains 'params: auth_key/session for auth, name = the friendly name of the key to delete,' covering the three parameters. However, it doesn't add deep semantics like format constraints or examples beyond what's implied, and the schema already defines properties well, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 specific action ('Delete an auth key by its name') and resource ('auth key'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'mess_get_auth_keys' (read) and 'mess_create_auth_key' (create). It explicitly notes deletion is 'by its name (not its value)' and 'Identified by name in the URL path,' providing precise operational context.

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 implies usage when needing to delete an auth key by name, with context from sibling tools suggesting alternatives: use 'mess_get_auth_keys' to list keys first or 'mess_create_auth_key' to create one. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or prerequisites beyond the parameters.

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