Delete webauthn

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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is partly covered. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as irreversibility, authentication requirements, or what happens to the user's account after removal.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for the stated purpose.

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 WebAuthn deletion tool with three undocumented wrapper parameters and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It does not explain parameter usage, required identifiers, permissions, or post-deletion 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 three parameters (form, params, json_body) are completely untyped and undocumented. The description does not compensate by explaining how to identify the WebAuthn key to delete, making correct invocation difficult.

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 states a specific verb and resource: removing a registered WebAuthn security key. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish this tool from nearby WebAuthn management siblings such as get_webauthn or activate_webauthn.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no note about whose security key can be removed. The intended use is only implied by the word "Remove."

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