delete_hitl_keys

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the destructive consequence of permanently unreadable ciphertexts, the authentication prerequisite, and the required configuration step. This is strong behavioral disclosure.

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 and well-structured: operation, irreversible consequence, then access prerequisite. The warning is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 destructive tool, it covers the resource affected, the permanent consequence, the authentication model, and the required setup action. The absence of an output schema is acceptable because the operation's success/failure is self-evident.

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 single parameter hitl_id is fully described in the schema as 'HITL config ID', and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

States a specific operation and resource: deleting the encryption keypair from a HITL config. The warning about permanent unreadability clarifies the consequence, and the wording distinguishes this from delete_hitl, which deletes the config itself rather than its keypair.

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?

Provides clear usage context: a Proof account is required, PROOF_API_KEY must be set, the server restarted, and start_login will not authenticate this operation. It gives an explicit exclusion, though it does not name alternative tools for related key operations, so it stops short of a 5.

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