anaf_delete_token

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by naming the actual side effect — revocation of e-Factura synchronization for the CIF tied to the token — which an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded, the consequence second, and the parameter hint last. Every sentence carries distinct information.

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 single-parameter deletion with rich annotations and no output schema, this covers action, consequence, and parameter provenance. It could say more about failure modes (unknown ID, already-revoked token) but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema description already says 'integer ID from anaf_tokens', so the description's note about the integer ID and its source restates structured data rather than extending it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb (delete) and resource (ANAF OAuth token), plus the concrete consequence for e-Factura sync. This distinguishes it cleanly from anaf_tokens (listing) and anaf_create_token_link (creation).

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?

It makes clear when you'd call it (to revoke e-Factura sync for a CIF) and tells you where the required ID comes from (anaf_tokens). It stops short of explicit exclusions such as what to do if the token is in use or how to re-establish access afterward.

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