delete_credential

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It explicitly discloses irreversibility and the pre-deletion usage-stats summary, which are important and non-obvious traits. However, it does not mention permission requirements, rate limits, or impact on dependent credentials/tokens.

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, front-loaded sentences convey the action, the critical irreversibility warning, and a notable behavioral detail. Every clause earns its place; there is no repetition of the tool name or schema.

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?

The description adequately covers the input (via schema), the destructive nature, and the pre-deletion stats output. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it leaves gaps around the post-deletion response, success/failure behavior, and any required authorization.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a clear description for the single 'name' parameter ('凭据名称或 id'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: '删除一个凭据' (delete a credential), and adds a decisive qualifier '不可恢复' (irrecoverable). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as list_credentials, update_credential, and usage_stats.

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 explains what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. Notably, it mentions returning usage statistics before deletion, which could mislead an agent into calling this destructive tool for stats alone; the sibling usage_stats is not referenced.

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