api_tokens_delete

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is covered structurally. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond that: the authentication constraint (admin JWT only, API-key forbidden), which affects whether an agent can invoke it at all. It does not say whether deletion is recoverable or what happens to the credential immediately.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the action front-loaded and the constraint immediately behind it. Nothing needs to be reordered or trimmed.

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 one-parameter destructive call with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema required, the description supplies the action plus the critical auth gate. It is largely complete; an explicit statement of irreversibility or whether the token is immediately invalidated would close the remaining gap.

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 100% and there is exactly one parameter (uuid) whose format and meaning are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden and a baseline 3 applies.

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 a specific verb+resource pair, "Delete API token," which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from siblings like api_tokens_create, api_tokens_list, and api_tokens_scopes. It never explicitly names an alternative or scope boundary, so it differentiates by resource name rather than by exclusion.

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 states an explicit precondition for invocation: the endpoint is forbidden via "API-key" and usable only with an admin JWT-token. That is real usage guidance an agent must honor before calling. It stops short of when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to siblings (e.g. revoke vs delete semantics).

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