forcepoint_user_token_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the mutating and high-risk nature, which warns of destructive impact, and mentions the authorizationKey requirement. This goes beyond a simple 'delete' statement, providing useful safety and authentication context, though it doesn't detail irreversibility or error behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loads the action, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place, efficiently conveying purpose, risk, and a prerequisite.

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?

The tool is a simple delete operation with two parameters and no output schema. The description covers the core purpose, risk level, and an important authentication condition. It lacks details on return values or behavior with non-existent users, but these are less critical for a delete tool, making it reasonably 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?

The schema has no descriptions for either parameter, so the description must compensate. It explains the authorizationKey parameter's purpose (required when admin auth is enabled), but does not explicitly describe the userId parameter, though 'one user scope' implies its role. This partial explanation warrants a mid-range score.

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 tool deletes a Vault-backed Forcepoint credential for one user scope, using the specific verb 'Delete' and a clear resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like forcepoint_user_token_get and forcepoint_user_token_set, which handle retrieval and creation/updating.

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 provides clear context by labeling the operation as 'Mutating and high-risk' and noting the conditional requirement for authorizationKey. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the context is sufficient to understand when this tool should be used (i.e., when needing to remove a user credential).

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