manage_api_keys_delete

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It successfully discloses irreversibility ('cannot be undone'), but omits other critical behavioral details: immediate effect on active requests, required permissions, or error conditions (e.g., what happens if key_id doesn't exist).

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?

Front-loaded with the core action statement. Uses docstring format (Args/Returns) efficiently. The Returns section ('dict: Success status') is concise but vague; however, given no output schema exists, this brief mention is acceptable without being wasteful.

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?

Appropriate for a low-complexity tool (1 parameter, simple destructive action). The description covers the critical safety warning (irreversibility) and basic parameter documentation. Given the simplicity, absence of detailed error handling or authorization notes is acceptable, though not ideal.

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 has 0% description coverage (key_id is bare string). The Args section compensates by documenting 'key_id: Key ID to delete', providing necessary semantic context. However, it lacks format specifications, example values, or source guidance (e.g., 'obtain from manage_api_keys_list').

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 specific action 'Permanently delete' with resource 'API key', and distinguishes from siblings (manage_api_keys_revoke, manage_api_keys_rotate) via the explicit 'permanently' and 'cannot be undone' qualifiers, clearly signaling this is irreversible destruction vs. reversible state changes.

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?

Implies usage through 'permanently' and 'cannot be undone', suggesting this is for permanent removal rather than temporary disabling (revoke). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools like manage_api_keys_revoke or manage_api_keys_rotate, nor provide explicit 'when to use vs. when not to use' guidance.

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