Delete private key

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

Annotations already indicate a destructive operation, but the description adds a meaningful, specific consequence: 'Not recoverable from Coolify once gone.' This goes beyond the generic destructiveHint by stating permanence, which is highly relevant for an AI agent deciding to invoke the tool.

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 short, efficient sentences. The action and resource are front-loaded, and the crucial irreversibility warning is appended without redundancy. No word is wasted.

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 simple delete operation with one parameter, annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the most critical behavioral consequence (permanent deletion). It does not discuss error handling or idempotency, but given the tool's simplicity, the description is sufficiently 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?

The input schema provides no description for the uuid parameter, and schema description coverage is 0%. The description does clarify that the UUID identifies which key to delete, offering partial compensation. However, it does not specify the UUID format, origin, or validation rules, leaving gaps for a single parameter.

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'), the resource ('SSH private key'), and the identifier ('by UUID'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like listPrivateKeys, createPrivateKey, getPrivateKey, and updatePrivateKey.

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?

Usage is implied by the verb and resource, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., updatePrivateKey for modifying, listPrivateKeys for viewing). The 'Not recoverable' warning provides a cautionary note but does not offer clear when-to/when-not-to guidance.

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