openai_delete_project_api_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a notable failure mode (service account keys) and implies that deletion revokes the key, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is irreversible or mention any permissions or side effects, which are relevant for a destructive operation.

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 compact: a one-sentence action, a conditional note with an alternative, and a concise arg list. Every element earns its place and the most critical information is front-loaded.

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 delete tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It covers the primary action, the key edge case, and parameter sourcing. It could mention permission requirements or explicit irreversibility, but these are not strictly necessary given the output schema and the clarity of the action.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so by explaining each parameter's purpose and pointing to the correct list tools for lookups, adding valuable meaning beyond the bare input schema.

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 opens with 'Delete an API key from a project', a specific verb-resource pair that clearly states the tool's function. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like openai_list_project_api_keys and openai_get_project_api_key by focusing on deletion, and mentions the alternative openai_delete_service_account for a specific case.

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 explicitly states a condition under which the tool fails (service account keys) and directs the agent to use openai_delete_service_account instead. It also references openai_list_projects and openai_list_project_api_keys for obtaining the required IDs, providing clear when-to-use and how-to-proceed guidance.

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