abx_delete_action_secret

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the operation and echoing the HTTP route; it doesn't say whether the secret is permanently removed, whether callers need specific permissions, or how errors surface.

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 core action is front-loaded, and the HTTP route is mildly useful for endpoint mapping. However, 'Delete an action secret' and 'Deletes an action secret' are pure duplication, so roughly a third of the text earns no 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 single-parameter destructive delete with complete annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. It never states reversibility or failure behavior, which matters for a destructive operation.

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?

There is a single parameter and the schema documents it fully ('ID of the action secret (path)'), so the schema does the work. The description adds no extra semantics, which meets the baseline-3 expectation at 100% schema coverage.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Delete an action secret'), so the agent instantly knows the operation. It does not distinguish this from siblings such as abx_get_action_secrets, abx_put_action_secrets_by_id, or abx_post_action_secrets, but the intent itself is unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the get/put/post siblings, no note about prerequisites such as needing the secret's ID first, and no mention of what happens if the secret doesn't exist. The agent must infer everything from the tool name.

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