creds_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a destructive action, but it does not mention whether the deletion is permanent, if any confirmation is required, or what happens if the credential ID does not exist. This lack of side-effect disclosure is a significant gap for a delete 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 a single, concise sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning, with no redundant information.

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 single-parameter delete tool, the description provides the core purpose and parameter context. However, it omits details about return values, error behavior, or any confirmation step. Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is minimally viable but leaves out important operational context for an agent.

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 input schema only provides type and name for cred_id, with 0% description coverage. The description's phrase 'by its ID' clarifies that cred_id is the identifier of the credential to be deleted, adding essential meaning. However, it does not elaborate on the format or any additional constraints, so it falls short of fully compensating for the schema's lack of detail.

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 a specific action ('Delete'), a clear resource ('credential from the vault'), and a precise criterion ('by its ID'). It is unambiguous and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like creds_store, creds_list, and creds_use.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or compare with other credential-related tools, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the action.

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