Delete API Key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the whole burden and does well: it discloses irreversibility, immediate impact on downstream services, and mandates a confirmation step. It leaves out key details such as permissions required or whether revocation takes effect instantly, which keeps it off a 5.

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?

Two short sentences with zero filler: the action is front-loaded and the safety directive follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description supplies what the agent most needs – confirmation protocol and consequences. It could note what a successful delete returns or whether the key is immediately invalidated, but nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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% for the single required 'id' parameter, so the schema already documents it. The description adds no format, prefix, or lookup guidance (e.g., how to obtain the ID via list-api-keys), so 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Delete an API key'), scoped to 'your Emailit account', which clearly separates it from create-api-key, get-api-key, list-api-keys and update-api-key in the sibling list. It stops short of explicitly naming an alternative for key rotation/revocation, but the action itself is unambiguous.

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?

Gives an explicit precondition – 'you MUST double-check with the user' – and explains the consequence that makes confirmation necessary ('irreversible', dependent services lose access). It does not mention when a different tool (e.g., update-api-key) would be preferable, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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