delete_auth_key

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that deletion targets the key's human-readable name rather than the token value, and it explains the api_key parameter's fallback to the MESS_API_KEY environment variable. It does not detail error behavior or irreversibility, but the delete operation is explicit and the added context is valuable.

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 short and front-loaded with the core action. The Args block is compact and directly maps to the schema parameters without unnecessary elaboration.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with an output schema present, the description is mostly complete. It explains the critical identification semantics and auth fallback. A minor gap is not pointing users to list_auth_keys to obtain the key name, but that is not essential for correct invocation.

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 does: 'name' is explained as the human-readable key name, and 'api_key' is described with its environment variable fallback. Both parameters receive meaningful semantic context beyond their bare schema types.

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 states a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('API key'), and adds a key distinguishing detail: the key is identified by its human-readable name, not its token value. This clearly sets it apart from sibling tools like create_auth_key and list_auth_keys.

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 clearly implies the tool is for deleting an API key by name and provides the identification caveat, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when to prefer this over list_auth_keys or create_auth_key. Usage context is present, but not the when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance that would merit a higher score.

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