delete_api_key

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint: true and readOnlyHint: false, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds specific consequence: applications using the key will lose access. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining the impact, which is valuable context. No contradiction with 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 extremely concise: two short sentences that state the action, the endpoint, and the critical destructive consequence. It front-loads the essential information and contains no filler. Every word 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 simple delete operation with two parameters fully documented in the schema, the description covers the key behavioral aspect (destructive impact on applications). It does not describe the return value or post-deletion state, but for a delete call this is minor. Combined with annotations and schema, it is nearly 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 fully describes both parameters: id (integer, 'ID ключа') and confirm (boolean, 'Must be true to run the operation.'). Schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain them further. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline of 3.

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/delete) and the resource (API-ключ/API key), and even includes the endpoint path (api_keys/delete). This is specific and differentiates it from siblings like create_api_key, update_api_key, and list_api_keys. The destructive warning further reinforces its purpose.

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 it (when you intend to revoke an API key and accept that dependent applications will lose access) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for choosing this over update_api_key (e.g., to disable rather than delete). The destructive note provides some guidance but not full exclusions.

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