delete_credential

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

The annotations already state destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating operation. The description adds important context beyond the annotations: the operation is reversible via restore_credential, meaning it is a soft delete rather than a permanent one. It does not cover permission requirements or return behavior, but for a simple mutation with annotation coverage, this is a substantial addition.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It states the action, the result, and the recovery path in one efficient clause. Every part earns its 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 simple one-parameter mutation tool, the annotations cover the safety profile and the description adds the crucial soft-delete nuance. However, the parameter 'ref' is entirely undocumented in both the schema and the description, which leaves a significant gap for correct invocation. The description is adequate but not complete enough to guide an agent on what value to pass.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'ref,' and the description does not explain what 'ref' should contain (e.g., an ID, name, or UUID). The phrase 'a credential' implies that ref identifies a credential, giving minimal semantics, but no format or example is provided. The description fails to compensate for the total lack of schema 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Move a credential to the trash.' It also clarifies the operation is a soft delete by noting it is 'recoverable with restore_credential,' which distinguishes this tool from the sibling purge_credential (permanent deletion). An agent can immediately understand the scope and consequence without opening the schema.

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 contains no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as purge_credential, update_credential, or revoke_approvals. The mention of restore_credential only describes the recovery path, not the conditions that should select this tool. An agent is left to infer that 'move to trash' means a reversible delete, but no alternatives or exclusions are stated.

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