config_delete

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It communicates that deletion happens, but not whether it is permanent, whether it affects only the specified agent, what side effects occur, or how the idempotency_key parameter influences behavior.

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 words. It is well-structured as a one-line purpose statement, though the brevity approaches under-specification for a destructive operation with multiple parameters.

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 tool with no annotations and three parameters, 'Delete a config key' is not enough context. It omits which config system is referenced, whether deletion is reversible, and how the optional parameters affect invocation. The output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not strictly required, but the invocation semantics remain underspecified.

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. It clarifies that 'key' is a config key, but it says nothing about the meaning or effects of the 'agent' or 'idempotency_key' parameters, both of which are present in 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 uses an explicit verb ('Delete') and a clear resource ('a config key'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like config_get and config_set. It is not a tautology, but it does not clarify what config scope or namespace is affected.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as config_get to inspect before deleting or config_set to update a value. The agent must infer that config_delete is the destructive counterpart based only on the tool name and one-sentence description.

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