api_tokens_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. 'Delete' indicates a destructive mutation, but there is no mention of whether deletion is irreversible, what happens if the token does not exist, whether authorization is required, or what response is returned. This is a meaningful gap for a tool that permanently removes a resource.

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, directly front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to communicating the primary action and object. It is as concise as possible without losing clarity.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter tool with a fully documented schema, so the description does not need to explain parameter details. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves an agent without guidance on expected outcomes, error conditions, or whether deletion is permanent. It is minimally adequate but incomplete for a destructive operation.

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 100% and the only parameter, uuid, is already described as 'Token UUID to delete.' The description adds no semantic value beyond the schema, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage. The required nature and additionalProperties: false are already captured structurally.

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 'Delete an API token' clearly identifies the action (delete) and the resource (API token), making it straightforward even among siblings like api_tokens_list and api_tokens_create. It is specific enough to distinguish the tool's core intent, though it does not elaborate on scope or side effects.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as api_tokens_create or api_tokens_list. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about how deletion fits into a workflow. The only signal is the verb 'delete,' which weakly implies the use case.

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