Удаление API-токена

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

The description states the tool 'deletes' an API token, which is clearly destructive, but the annotation destructiveHint is false. This is a direct contradiction. No additional behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, permissions) is given, so the description fails to provide transparency and actually misleads.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the action and target. It has zero wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple deletion tool.

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?

Despite being a simple one-parameter tool, the description's contradiction with destructiveHint and lack of any note about irreversibility or post-deletion effects leaves it incomplete. The annotations do not compensate, and the description fails to clarify the operation's impact.

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 schema already covers token_id with 100% coverage and a clear description ('ОБЯЗАТЕЛЬНОЕ ПОЛЕ - ID API-токена'). The description's phrase 'by its ID' adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Удаляет API-токен по его ID' uses a specific verb ('Удаляет' = deletes) and resource ('API-токен' = API token) and adds scope ('by its ID'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like edit_api_key or list_api_keys.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing the token ID, or contrast with edit_api_key/refresh_api_key. The usage is only implied by the name and description.

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