delete_api_key

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

The description explicitly warns that applications using the key will lose access, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations. The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description reinforces and adds the real-world consequence. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 short sentences with no wasted words. The destructive warning is front-loaded and the tool's purpose is immediately clear. It earns its place by adding critical safety context.

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 destructive delete operation with a required confirm flag, the description covers the essential context: what is deleted and the consequence. The output schema is absent, but for a delete operation the return value is typically minimal. The description could mention that the operation is irreversible, but the destructive warning already implies this.

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 both parameters (id and confirm). The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the confirm parameter's purpose is clear from the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Удалить API-ключ') and the resource (API key), and explicitly identifies the operation as destructive. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_api_key, list_api_keys, create_api_key, and update_api_key by naming the delete operation and its consequence.

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 implies when to use this tool: when an API key must be permanently removed. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the destructive warning and the tool name make the usage context clear. A brief mention of when not to use it (e.g., for temporary deactivation) would improve it.

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