Delete an image registration

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the precise effect (removes key→URL binding), what it does NOT do (delete CDN bytes), and the return behavior (404 if key not registered), giving agents complete transparency into side effects.

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 concise sentences, each providing essential information: the action, the negative scope, and the error return. No redundant words or repetition of schema details, 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?

For a simple single-parameter delete tool with no annotations or output schema, the description is complete. It covers the operation's effect, its limitation, and error behavior, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does or its consequences.

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 input schema already documents the 'key' parameter with a description and example, achieving 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly states the action: 'Remove an image key registration' and explains the effect on the URL resolution via GET /v1/images/{key}. It distinguishes itself from sibling delete tools by clarifying that it only removes the key→URL binding, not the underlying CDN bytes.

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 implicitly indicates when to use this tool (when an image key needs to be unregistered) and provides a key exclusion: it does NOT delete CDN bytes, helping agents choose it over sibling delete tools for this specific purpose. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state 'when not to use' in direct terms.

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