x_auth_delete_profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that deletion affects both Vault and Postgres metadata, which is a useful behavioral detail. However, it omits important traits such as irreversibility, required permissions, and what happens if the profile does not exist. Thus, it provides partial but not comprehensive transparency.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the verb 'Delete' and delivers the essential action. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 tool with 6 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a one-sentence description is inadequate. It lacks parameter semantics, error behavior, return value expectations, and usage guidance. The description is too sparse to support correct invocation of all parameters.

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%, so the description must compensate. It fails to explain the optional parameters (userId, accountId, authorizationKey) and does not clarify the relationship between profileType and the described resource. The property names are somewhat self-explanatory, but several parameters remain ambiguous without additional context.

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 the specific resource ('stored tenant-scoped app profile or tenant/principal credential profile') along with the target systems ('Vault and Postgres metadata'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like x_auth_upsert_app_credentials and x_auth_get_scope_credentials.

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 the use case: deleting auth profiles. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., x_config_delete) or mention prerequisites like authorizationKey or tenant context. No when-not conditions or alternative tool references are provided.

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