yaaif_api_key_delete

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the cascading deletion of the linked Credentials record, which is valuable, but it does not state that the action is irreversible, mention permission requirements, or describe what happens to bindings/deployments associated with the key.

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?

One sentence, zero filler, and the most important behavior is front-loaded. The conditional side-effect is stated compactly without unnecessary detail.

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 one-parameter delete tool, the core behavior is stated, but without an output schema or annotations, an agent still lacks information about success/error responses and irreversibility. The source of key_id is also left to inference from sibling tool names.

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% and the description never mentions key_id. The parameter name is self-explanatory, but the description adds no guidance on how to obtain the ID (e.g., from api_key_list) or any format expectations, so it fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 uses a specific verb 'Delete (revoke)' and identifies the resource (API key) plus a notable side-effect (linked Credentials record). It clearly distinguishes this from api_key_rotate, api_key_update, and other sibling tools.

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?

Usage is implied by the delete/revoke semantics and the caution about the linked Credentials record, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not directed to alternatives like rotate for cases where the key should be replaced rather than permanently removed.

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