qui_delete_client_api_key

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

The annotation indicates destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows it's destructive. However, the description adds no additional context such as permanence, what exactly is deleted, or side effects. It merely states the endpoint, providing no extra behavioral transparency beyond the annotation.

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 endpoint and immediately followed by usage mechanics. No wasted words or redundancy, and every word earns its place.

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 generic schema and 0% coverage, the description leaves too much unspecified. It does not explicitly mention that the client API key id must be passed as a path variable, nor whether any query parameters or body are required. The instruction to pass a JSON request body could mislead the agent into thinking a body is needed for a DELETE operation. The output schema exists, but input semantics are insufficient for reliable 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?

The input schema is a generic 'arguments' object with no specific parameters, and schema coverage is 0%. The description helps by explaining the argument structure (path variables at top level, query params in arguments.params, body in arguments.body). However, it does not specify what the required path variable {id} is or any query/body fields, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 explicitly names the HTTP DELETE endpoint for client API keys, which clearly identifies the resource and action. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like qui_delete_api_key, which targets a different resource.

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 instructions on how to structure arguments (path variables, query, body) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or any exclusions. Usage is implied by the endpoint, but no clear guidance is given for choosing between similar delete tools.

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