vk_delete_tokens_dcb58e5a4fdd

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses multiple behavioral traits: it's a raw REST proxy, path/query parameters are top-level fields, camelCase and snake_case aliases are accepted, authentication is required, and a request body is typically unnecessary. These details go beyond the schema and add real value.

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 four short sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded. Each subsequent sentence adds operational detail (proxy nature, aliases, auth, body expectations) without any fluff or repetition.

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 a simple delete action with one logical parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers usage. It states ownership scope, authentication, body expectations, and parameter naming rules. It doesn't mention irreversibility, but that is inherent in delete operations and largely obvious.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the three properties are essentially redundant aliases for the same tokenID. The description clarifies that original parameter names accept camelCase and snake_case aliases, and that these are top-level path/query fields. This adds meaning beyond the repeated 'Token ID Required' 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 opens with 'Deletes an existing api token' — a specific verb and resource. It further identifies itself as the raw REST proxy for DELETE /tokens/{tokenID}, distinguishing it from sibling tools that delete projects, tasks, or teams.

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 establishes clear usage context: it deletes API tokens owned by the user and notes that the endpoint normally does not require a request body. It does not explicitly name alternatives like vk_get_tokens or vk_put_tokens, but the sibling list and the phrase 'Delete any of the user's api tokens' make it clear when this tool is appropriate.

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