delete_geomi_api_key

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it correctly identifies this as a deletion operation (implying mutation/destruction), it fails to mention critical behavioral aspects: whether deletion is permanent, what permissions are required, if there are confirmation prompts, rate limits, or error conditions. For a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 first sentence is direct and front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the second marketing sentence ('Geomi is the essential toolkit for Aptos developers') adds no value to tool understanding and wastes space. A more concise version would omit this irrelevant information.

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 destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after deletion (success response, error handling), doesn't mention side effects, and provides no behavioral context. The agent lacks critical information needed to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 description coverage is 100%, with all four parameters clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain relationships between parameters or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('API Key for your Geomi Organization'), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'create_geomi_api_key' and 'update_geomi_api_key' by specifying deletion. However, it includes an unnecessary marketing statement ('Geomi is the essential toolkit for Aptos developers') that doesn't enhance purpose clarity.

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., needing an existing API key), exclusions, or compare it to related tools like 'delete_geomi_application' or 'delete_geomi_project'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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