critical_delete_tokens

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but description adds valuable context: invalid tokens are silently ignored, deterministic token re-tokenization behavior, and a maximum of 1024 values per call. This goes beyond the annotation to disclose important operational details.

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 concise, with three clear points in separate paragraphs. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with the primary action, then key behaviors. Every sentence adds value.

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 delete operation, the description covers what happens (delete), edge cases (invalid tokens, re-tokenization), and limits (1024). Output schema exists, so return format is not needed. Complete for effective 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and describes the 'tokens' parameter as a dict. Description adds a usage example and the constraint of max 1024 values, which complements the schema. The description enhances understanding of the parameter's semantics.

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?

Description clearly states 'Delete critical tokens, removing them from the token store.' It specifies the resource (critical tokens) and action (delete), and distinguishes from sibling delete tools like 'vault_delete_tokens' by the 'critical' qualifier and additional behavior details.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like 'vault_delete_tokens'. It implies use for critical tokens but lacks direct comparison or exclusion criteria. The behavior details (silent ignore, re-tokenization) provide some context but no when-to-use guidance.

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