vault_delete_tokens

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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, the description adds critical behavioral details: permanent deletion, inability to detokenize, deterministic token re-generation behavior, rate limits (492/month, 50/second), and maximum 4096 values per call. This fully informs the agent.

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 highly concise: three sentences covering purpose, behavioral impact, and constraints. No redundant information, and the most important action is stated first.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and the destructive annotation, the description covers the essential behavior, limitations, and usage constraints. It could optionally mention that the output schema provides deletion results, but it is sufficiently complete.

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%, so the schema already documents the 'tokens' parameter as a dict. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what's in the schema description, leading to a baseline score of 3.

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 clearly states the verb 'delete' and the resource 'vault tokens', specifying it is permanent. It distinguishes from siblings like vault_tokenize and vault_detokenize by focusing on deletion rather than tokenization or detokenization.

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 provides context (permanent deletion, re-tokenization behavior) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., critical_delete_tokens). No usage exclusions or comparisons to siblings are given.

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