provider_delete_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the revocation scenario; it does not say whether the deleted token's live sessions are immediately invalidated, whether an admin can delete another user's token, or how failures are reported — meaningful gaps for an irreversible auth operation.

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 front-load purpose and usage before the endpoint path; nothing is padded. The trailing raw path largely duplicates the annotation title (which is the same endpoint string), making it the one low-value element.

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, idempotent delete with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the definition supplies enough to call it correctly. The remaining unanswered question — the blast radius on the caller's own session when the current token is the one deleted — is a modest omission rather than a blocker.

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?

With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents "Token ID URN (path)". The description's "DELETE /cloudapi/1.0.0/tokens/{id}" corroborates that the id is the path segment but adds no format or sourcing guidance beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Delete a specific token") plus a concrete motivating scenario (revoking a leaked token), which distinguishes it from provider_get_token / provider_get_tokens / provider_update_token in the sibling list. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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?

"Use this to revoke the current token in case of a leak" gives a real when-to-use trigger rather than leaving usage implied. It offers no when-not or named alternative (e.g. provider_delete_1_0_0_sessions_by_id for ending sessions), so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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