delete_api_keys_by_id

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this is a mutating, destructive operation. The description adds only the HTTP endpoint and a note to read the GET/schema for body fields. It does not disclose permanence of deletion, potential impact on related resources, or any side effects. Given the annotation coverage, the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what is already known.

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 short and to the point, but the first sentence 'Delete api api-keys.' is grammatically awkward and not front-loaded with the key information. The argument list is concise, but the overall structure could be improved by leading with a clearer statement like 'Deletes a specific API key by its ID.'

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?

The tool is relatively simple with two parameters and an output schema. The description provides the endpoint and some body guidance, but it omits an explicit statement that 'id' is the API key's ID and that deletion is permanent. It also does not mention that the body is usually null or that the ID must come from a prior list call. Overall, it is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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?

With schema_description_coverage at 0%, the description must explain parameters. It labels 'id' merely as 'Path parameter' without stating it is the API key's unique identifier. The 'body' guidance to read the GET or schema endpoint is indirect and does not clarify the body's purpose for a DELETE operation. The description falls short of compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 the action 'Delete' and the resource 'api api-keys', which clearly corresponds to deleting API keys. It also provides the HTTP DELETE endpoint, making the purpose understandable. However, the phrasing 'api api-keys' is awkward and does not explicitly mention 'by ID', though the name and id argument imply it. It is distinct from sibling tools like list_api_keys and patch_api_keys_by_id.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_api_keys or patch_api_keys_by_id. It does not mention that the user should call list_api_keys to obtain an ID or that deletion is permanent. The only instruction is to read the GET or schema endpoint for the body payload, which is about parameter usage, not tool selection.

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