jumpcloud_config_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly warns 'Destructive' and 'Risk: high,' which is valuable for a delete operation. However, it does not detail side effects, irreversibility, or authentication requirements, leaving significant gaps.

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 very short and front-loaded with key warnings. Every sentence adds information, but the opening 'Mutating Postgres config delete' is grammatically clunky and slightly redundant with 'Destructive.' Despite this, it remains appropriately concise.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-specified. It does not explain which parameters are required beyond the schema, what happens on success or failure, or whether the operation is reversible. The warning 'Risk: high' is helpful but not complete enough for safe invocation.

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, but it fails to explain the parameters. It does not mention that 'key' identifies the setting, nor what userId, tenantId, or authorizationKey are for. The only implicit hint is 'non-secret settings,' which is insufficient.

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 the tool performs a delete operation on Postgres config settings, and the use case 'remove obsolete non-secret settings' clarifies its function. It distinguishes itself from sibling config tools (list/get/set) by explicitly being the delete action, though the phrasing 'Mutating Postgres config delete' is awkward.

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?

It provides a clear usage context: 'Use to remove obsolete non-secret settings.' This implies when to use (for obsolete non-secret settings) and implicitly excludes secrets, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use.

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