kv_delete

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds only the word "shared," hinting the value is cross-agent/cross-project scoped, but says nothing about behavior on a missing key or whether deletion is recoverable.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the action. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to be fully informative for a destructive operation.

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?

An output schema and complete destructive/idempotent annotations reduce the burden, and for a two-parameter delete the description is barely sufficient. It still omits error behavior for a nonexistent key and the project-scoping default, leaving real gaps for a destructive tool.

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 50%: project_id carries rich inline guidance while key has none. The description's "by key" merely restates the required parameter name and adds no format, uniqueness, or lookup semantics, and it ignores project_id entirely — so it does not compensate for the coverage 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a shared value") and the selector ("by key"), which cleanly distinguishes it from siblings kv_get, kv_set, and kv_list. It stops short of explicitly naming those alternatives, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance is given. It never mentions kv_set/kv_get as the paired operations or warns that deletion is permanent. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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