delete_credential

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly discloses the important safety behavior: deletion is blocked when the credential is in use unless the force flag is set. This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it does not mention irreversibility or permission requirements.

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 sentence that is direct, front-loaded, and free of filler. It packs the core action and the critical safety behavior into minimal words without losing clarity.

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 tool with only two simple parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: deletion with a safety check and a force override. It could mention that deletion is irreversible, but the current description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the operation's core semantics.

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%, so the schema already documents the id and force parameters well. The description's mention of 'unless forced' aligns with the force parameter but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies.

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 action ('Delete') and the resource ('a credential'), and adds the key distinguishing nuance of safety checks. It is unambiguous and differentiates this tool from sibling tools like delete_workflow or update_credential.

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 use case is implied: use this when a credential needs to be deleted. However, the description does not explicitly say when to use it versus other credential-related tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or caveats beyond the force behavior. The guidance is adequate but not explicit.

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