Delete a secret provider configuration

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

The description adds the HTTP method (DELETE) and authorization class ('board'), which goes beyond the annotations (destructiveHint: true). However, it does not explain the impact of deletion (e.g., irreversible, cascade to associated secrets) or the response format. Annotations already signal destruction, so the description's added value is moderate.

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 concise with two sentences, no filler. The first sentence repeats the title but the second adds technical specifics. It is appropriately sized for a simple delete operation.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not explain what the operation returns (e.g., success status, deleted object). It also omits critical context like whether deletion is irreversible or affects dependent resources. For a destructive operation with dependencies, this is insufficient.

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?

The description mentions the path template with {id}, clarifying that the 'id' parameter is used in the URL. The schema documents 'path.id' as a required string, but the description adds no further detail about parameter constraints or the optional 'body' parameter. With 50% schema coverage, the description partially compensates by connecting the parameter to the endpoint.

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 tool deletes a secret provider configuration, with the title repeating the action. It specifies the HTTP method and path, making the resource and verb unambiguous. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like pc_delete_secrets_by_id or other delete operations for related resources.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as pc_patch_secret_provider_configs_by_id for modifications. There is no mention of prerequisites, consequences, or context for deletion.

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