delete_user_by_user_id_push_subscription_by_endpoint

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

Annotations already disclose that this is destructive and idempotent, so the description does not need to restate that. It adds only the HTTP method and path parameters, but no extra behavioral context such as side effects, error cases, or required permissions. This is acceptable but not enriched beyond the annotations.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. The path and parameter list are structured clearly. However, the vague 'by key' phrase and lack of parameter elaboration prevent a perfect score.

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 simple with two required scalar parameters, and the annotations plus output schema cover safety and return expectations. Still, the description omits meaningful context about the endpoint parameter, which is central to identifying the correct subscription, and does not clarify how the endpoint is used as a key.

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%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It only labels both parameters as path parameters, which adds location but not semantics: it does not explain what 'endpoint' means, what format it should take, or how it relates to the 'key' mentioned in the first sentence.

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 the resource ('user push subscription'), and the HTTP path identifies the scope (user ID and endpoint). It distinguishes itself from the sibling GET tool by explicitly showing the DELETE method, though 'by key' is slightly ambiguous without reading the path.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_user_register_push_subscription or get_user_by_user_id_push_subscription_by_endpoint. Usage is only implied by the word 'Delete' and the HTTP method; no exclusions or alternative conditions are stated.

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