qui_delete_api_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint: true, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions. The only additional information is the argument-passing convention, which does not pertain to behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and contains no redundant wording. Every sentence provides distinct useful 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 thin REST wrapper, the description adequately specifies the endpoint and argument structure. The output schema and destructiveHint annotation cover response and safety aspects. Minor omissions (e.g., explicit statement of required id) are largely covered by the endpoint path.

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 schema is generic with a single 'arguments' property and 0% parameter coverage. The description compensates by explaining that path variables go directly in arguments, query values in arguments.params, and JSON body in arguments.body. This provides essential structure for constructing the call, even though it does not enumerate specific fields like 'id'.

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 precisely identifies the action as calling the DELETE /api-keys/{id} endpoint, clearly conveying that this tool deletes an API key by ID. This distinguishes it from sibling tools such as qui_create_api_key and qui_list_api_keys.

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 implies the tool is used to delete an API key via the endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs alternatives or provide exclusions. The parameter-passing instructions are useful for invocation but not for selection guidance.

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