betadrop_token_delete

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. 'Revoke' implies the token is invalidated, but the description does not disclose whether authentication is required, whether the action is irreversible, whether it takes effect immediately, or what happens on repeated calls. For a destructive operation, 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 description is a single focused sentence that front-loads the action and object with zero filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits behavioral context such as auth requirements, post-conditions, and what the response looks like. The schema fills parameter gaps but not operational context, leaving the tool only partially complete.

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%, and the schema's parameter description already explains where the token ID comes from. The description's phrase 'by its ID' merely restates the schema and adds no new meaning. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the necessary work.

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 'Revoke a CLI token by its ID' uses a specific verb ('revoke') and a clear resource ('CLI token'). It is unambiguous and easily distinguished from sibling tools like betadrop_token_list and betadrop_token_create, even without naming them.

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 itself gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. However, the parameter description '(from betadrop_token_list)' implies a prerequisite workflow: first list tokens to obtain the ID. This is indirect usage guidance rather than an open exclusion.

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