Api iam auth tokens destroy

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that - no note that deleting a token invalidates the session it authorizes, whether the operation is reversible, or what a missing id returns.

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?

It is short to the point of having no content - a restated identifier rather than a sentence. This is under-specification, not efficiency, and there is nothing front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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?

A destructive, open-world IAM operation with no output schema and an undocumented required id: an agent has no basis to confirm it is deleting the right thing. The description is completely inadequate for the complexity of the call.

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?

There is one required parameter ('id') with 0% schema description coverage, and the description offers no hint about what the id identifies (token id vs. user id) or its format. With low coverage the description is expected to compensate, and it does not.

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 is literally the tool's snake_case name restated ('api_iam_auth_tokens_destroy'), which is a tautology rather than a statement of purpose. An agent can infer that an auth token is being deleted, but nothing distinguishes it from sibling iam tools such as iam_auth_tokens_create or iam_revoke_sessions_create.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g. revoke_sessions or logout), no preconditions such as needing the token id or admin rights. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.

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