delete_credential

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint: true, and the description goes beyond by explaining the specific consequence (workflows fail). This adds valuable behavioral detail for the agent.

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 two concise sentences: the first for purpose, the second for consequence. No wasted words, efficiently front-loaded.

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 tool with one parameter and annotations present, the description is fully complete. It covers purpose, consequence, and the schema covers the parameter. No gaps.

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 already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Credential ID' (100% coverage). The description does not add further semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed.

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 'Delete a credential by ID', specifying the action (Delete), resource (credential), and method (by ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_credential or transfer_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 description adds important context: 'Workflows that reference it will fail until reassigned', implying caution and when to avoid deletion. It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the consequence is a strong usage hint.

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