Forget stored Onshape credentials

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=true. The description adds specific detail about what is deleted (keychain entry and config file) and what is not (env vars, CLI install), going beyond annotations. No contradiction found.

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 concise sentences: the first states the core action, the second clarifies exclusions. No redundant words, and the primary effect is front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains the action and its boundaries. The agent has all necessary information to invoke it correctly without needing additional context.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the schema provides no information to explain. The description appropriately does not add parameter details, meeting the baseline score of 4 for a parameterless tool.

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 (Delete) and resource (credential stored on server), and specifies the storage locations (keychain entry and config file). It clearly distinguishes from related tools like onshape_login and onshape_set_api_key that manage credentials. Unambiguous and informative.

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 clarifies scope by excluding credentials from environment variables and onshape-cli installs, implicitly indicating when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a direct 'use this when' statement, so it falls short of a 5.

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