authDeleteBearerToken

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive mutation, the description fails to specify critical details: whether deletion is permanent or reversible, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what happens to associated resources. For a security-sensitive operation like token deletion, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('Delete') and resource ('bearer token'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place, adhering perfectly to conciseness best practices.

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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral traits (e.g., permanence, side effects), usage context relative to siblings, and expected outcomes. While the parameter is well-documented in the schema, the overall context for safe and correct invocation is insufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with 'tokenId' clearly documented as 'The id of the token to delete.' The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or where to obtain the ID. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a specific bearer token'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'authDeleteUser' or other deletion tools in the list, which would require mentioning it specifically targets authentication tokens rather than user accounts or other resources.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the token ID from 'authGetBearerToken' or 'authGetBearerTokens'), nor does it specify scenarios where deletion is appropriate (e.g., revoking access, security cleanup). With multiple sibling tools for managing tokens and users, this lack of context leaves the agent guessing.

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