b2_delete_key

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the key secret cannot be recovered, dependent systems lose access immediately, and deleteKeys permission plus destructive confirmation are required. This goes beyond the structured hints and informs the agent of irreversible external impact.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first states the action, the second provides the prerequisite workflow and alternatives, and the third explains consequences and requirements. Every sentence earns its place and the most important warning is front-loaded.

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 delete operation with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers prerequisites, permission requirements, the irreversible nature of the action, and immediate impact on dependents. Combined with the detailed parameter schemas and annotations, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool safely.

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% with descriptive parameter entries for applicationKeyId and confirm. The description reinforces the source of applicationKeyId via b2_list_keys and clarifies the confirm parameter's role under destructive policy, adding workflow context beyond the raw schema.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Permanently delete a B2 application key.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations like b2_delete_bucket or s3_delete_object by naming the exact resource type and the destructive nature of the action.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: use b2_list_keys first to verify the applicationKeyId and dependencies, and use b2_create_key before deletion when rotating credentials. It also states the permission requirement and policy confirmation, so an agent knows both prerequisites and recommended alternatives.

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