delete_token

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool deletes tokens but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a destructive operation.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by a parameter explanation. It avoids unnecessary words, but the structure could be improved by integrating the parameter details more seamlessly or adding a brief usage note to enhance clarity without bloating.

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 tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral risks, return values, or error conditions, which are crucial for safe invocation. This is inadequate for a deletion tool with no structured support.

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 description adds some meaning beyond the schema: it explains that 'pattern' matches 'part of the name or token number,' clarifying its purpose. However, with 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this is minimal compensation. The baseline is 3 since the schema alone lacks descriptions, and the tool has a simple parameter set.

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 action ('Delete') and resource ('OTP token'), and specifies the matching criteria ('matching the pattern'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'add_token' or 'list_otp_tokens' beyond the obvious verb difference, missing an opportunity to clarify scope or relationships.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., token existence), consequences of deletion, or when to choose this over other tools like 'list_otp_tokens' for verification. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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