delete_api_key

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds genuine context beyond the annotation by naming the consequence: apps using the key will lose access. It still doesn't state irreversibility or required authorization level.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the destructive consequence front-loaded right after the action. Every clause 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?

Annotations carry the safety profile, the schema fully documents both parameters, and no output schema is needed for a deletion. The description adds the downstream consequence, making it nearly complete for a simple two-param destructive call.

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 both id and confirm are already documented in the schema. The description adds no meaning beyond that (e.g. where to find the key id), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (API key), plus the underlying endpoint api_keys/delete. It clearly separates itself from create_api_key/update_api_key/list_api_keys by naming the action, though it doesn't explicitly position itself against those siblings.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to guidance is given. The destructive warning implies caution, but it never says when deletion is appropriate versus rotating (update_api_key) or revoking via another path – usage is only implied by the name.

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