agent_delete_capability

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the VOIDLY_MCP_RELAY_ALLOW_STATE_CHANGES=1 gate that must be set by the human owner, which is non-obvious authorization context. However, for a delete operation it says nothing about reversibility or the effect of removal, so the behavioral picture is incomplete.

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, front-loaded with the purpose and then the gate. The trailing sentence ('Acts as the identity in the local credential store') is cryptic and ambiguous rather than earning its place, but overall there is little waste.

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 destructive single-param tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the authorization gate but omits reversibility and post-delete behavior. Adequate but with clear gaps given the mutation nature of the tool.

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% with a single required parameter, so the schema already documents capability_id. The description adds no format, sourcing, or lookup guidance beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for full-coverage schemas.

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 (Remove) and resource (one of your capabilities from the public directory), which cleanly distinguishes it from the register/list/search capability siblings. An agent can identify the operation without opening the schema.

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 'off by default' gate describes a precondition for the call but names no alternative (e.g. agent_register_capability to re-add, agent_list_capabilities to find the id). Usage is implied rather than routed, so it lands at the minimum-viable level.

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