hamravesh_delete_apikey

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the disabling condition and the requirement to use id instead of value. However, it does not detail the outcome of deletion (e.g., success/failure responses, permanence, or error handling). Partial but not comprehensive.

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 consists of two concise sentences. The first sentence immediately states the action and key constraint (use id, not value). The second sentence provides critical activation context. No wasted words.

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 no output schema and incomplete parameter descriptions (org undocumented), the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to obtain a valid id (though sibling tool list_apikeys exists) or what the response looks like. The disabling note is important but not fully contextualized.

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 only clarifies the 'id' parameter (stating it's the identifier, not the value), but does not explain the 'org' parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description should elaborate on all parameters. The missing explanation for 'org' is a significant gap.

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 verb 'delete' and the resource 'API key', and distinguishes from other API key tools by specifying that it uses id, not value. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.

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 a key usage guideline: the tool is disabled by default and requires HAMRAVESH_ALLOW_WRITE=1 to activate. It also clarifies that the 'id' parameter is used, not 'value'. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives (e.g., deleting an app) is given, but the tool is the only delete for API keys.

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