delete_hiro_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose a genuinely useful behavior — deletion only affects the config file and the HIRO_API_KEY environment variable still wins as a fallback. It stops short of stating error behavior when no key exists, whether the removal is reversible, or any confirmation requirement for a destructive config change.

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 functional content is tight and front-loaded in two sentences, but the trailing 'Tip: call earning_opportunities...' is unrelated promotional filler that does not help an agent invoke this tool.

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 zero-parameter config-mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers what is removed, where it lives, and the residual env-var fallback. Only the failure/reversibility semantics are missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the baseline the schema fully covers the input surface and the description need not explain arguments.

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 verb (remove) plus the exact resource (the stored Hiro API key) and even the storage location (~/.aibtc/config.json). It is unambiguously distinct from the sibling set_hiro_api_key and get_hiro_api_key.

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?

Usage is implied by the negating name and the fallback note tells the agent what happens afterwards, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. whether to call this before switching providers, or whether a missing key causes an error).

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