Delete Federation Issuer

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

Beyond the annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description discloses the 409 conflict condition, the null return on success, the required role (organization admin), and which credential types are rejected (API keys, workload tokens). These are operative facts an agent cannot get from the structured fields.

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?

Four tight sentences ordered action → precondition → return → authorization, with zero filler. Every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact and the most decision-relevant content is front-loaded.

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, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers error behavior, return value, and auth constraints well. The remaining gap is parameter meaning, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description.

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 two required parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails to compensate. It never explains what 'id' refers to (issuer UUID) or what 'organization' expects (slug vs. identifier), leaving both parameters semantically opaque.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Delete the issuer"), which is unambiguous against siblings like create-federation-issuer and update-federation-issuer. It doesn't explicitly name the related sibling delete-federation-rule as the alternative, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 a concrete precondition for use: referencing rules must be deleted first or the API returns 409, which strongly implies delete-federation-rule is the prior step. It also states the auth contexts in which the call is valid. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool versus update/get alternatives.

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