Delete a pac auth profile

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose a meaningful boundary: the deletion affects only the local credential store, not the tenant. However, it omits reversibility, whether the active profile can be deleted, and failure behavior for a mutation 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 compact sentences, front-loading the operation and its scope before the implementation note. No filler.

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 no-annotation mutation tool this is only minimally sufficient: purpose and scope are covered, but reversibility, active-profile constraints, and error handling are absent. The lack of an output schema is not a gap since the operation is a simple delete.

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 coverage is 100%, so all six parameters are already documented. The description only restates that selection is by index or name, adding no format, precedence, or precedence-conflict details beyond the schema baseline.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('pac auth profile') and narrows the selection to index or name. It also scopes the operation ('local credential store only'), which differentiates it somewhat from tenant-affecting siblings, though it does not name cs_select_auth_profile or cs_list_auth_profiles as alternatives.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the deletion counterpart to cs_create_auth_profile, and nothing tells it whether an active profile can be removed or what to do instead if deletion is inappropriate.

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