manage_api_keys_delete

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden; it does disclose the most important trait — irreversibility — which is genuinely valuable. It omits permission/auth requirements, behavior when the key_id does not exist, and whether existing tokens authenticated by the key stop working immediately.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the destructive verb and immediately followed by the irreversibility warning. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

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?

An output schema exists and only one parameter is required, so the description needn't explain returns. It is nonetheless thin for a destructive operation lacking annotations: the relationship to revoke and failure modes are unstated.

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% for the single key_id parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no format, sourcing, or example detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Permanently delete an API key') with an explicit outcome qualifier ('cannot be undone'), so the operation is unambiguous. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling manage_api_keys_revoke, which is the most likely confusion point for an agent.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. The presence of manage_api_keys_revoke among siblings makes the missing delete-vs-revoke distinction a real ambiguity rather than a theoretical one.

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