delete_api_key

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

The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing the operational consequence (subsequent tool calls fail) and the recovery path (register a new key). It also specifies the OAuth 2.1 authentication requirement, which is not present in the annotations, adding meaningful behavioral context without contradicting the destructiveHint and idempotentHint flags.

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 three sentences, deliberately structured to lead with the core action, then the consequence, then the authentication requirement. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it exceptionally efficient.

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 the tool's simplicity (no parameters, clear destructive action, existing output schema), the description fully covers the purpose, consequences, auth requirements, and relationship to sibling tools. It is complete and self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 zero parameters in the schema, there are no parameter semantics to explain. The description appropriately focuses on the tool's action and effects, and the baseline score for 0-parameter tools is 4.

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 the user's registered J-Quants API key in multi-user mode, using the specific verb 'delete' and naming the exact resource. It distinctly contrasts with sibling tools like register_api_key, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 provides clear context for use: it removes the API key, and explicitly notes that subsequent tool calls will fail until a new key is registered with register_api_key. This references the alternative tool and establishes a usage sequence, though it does not explicitly state 'when not to use' scenarios.

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