Delete key

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations' destructiveHint=true by disclosing irreversibility, the differing impact on auth keys versus OAuth clients/federated identities, and the self-revocation edge case where the server's own credential is deleted and later calls fail with 401. This is rich, actionable behavioral context.

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 front-loaded: it opens with the action and resource, then states irreversibility, and then covers per-type behavior. Every sentence adds distinct information, and nothing repeats the schema or annotations.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the required scope, irreversibility, per-key-type consequences, and the notable self-revocation failure mode. Combined with annotations that already declare destructive and idempotent hints, nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 documents keyId at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine semantic value by clarifying that keyId may be an API access token itself and explaining the special self-authentication case. It stops short of explaining how to obtain or format key IDs, so it is not a 5.

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 verb ('Delete') and a well-scoped resource ('a key'), then enumerates the four key types: auth key, API access token, OAuth client, and federated identity. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like tailscale_delete_oauth_app or tailscale_delete_device.

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 clear context about consequences for each key type, but it never explicitly names alternatives or states when to prefer this tool over siblings such as tailscale_delete_oauth_app. Usage is implied by resource type rather than explicitly prescribed, so an agent must infer the selection logic.

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