delete_api_key

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses a critical behavioral trait: 'any caller using that key stops working.' It also states the confirm guard and auth requirement. It stops short of describing irreversibility, error behavior, or the response shape, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences with zero waste: purpose first, then the destructive consequence, then the confirm requirement, then auth. The agent gets the critical constraints in the order it needs them.

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 mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral risks and auth mechanics. It could mention permanence or what happens to in-flight requests, but it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 key_id and confirm are already fully documented in the schema. The description repeats 'by its key id' and 'must pass confirm: true' but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case meaning beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete (revoke)') and resource ('HMAC API key') with scope ('by its key id'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from create_api_key, list_api_keys, and fetch_api_keys by naming the exact action and identifier format.

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?

It gives clear context: destructive operation, required confirm flag, and the authentication source (session token from login or NEXUS_EXCHANGE_SESSION_TOKEN). It does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use it, but the prerequisites are clearly conveyed.

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