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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds valuable behavioral details: handling escaped slashes/tilde, reporting missing paths, rejecting duplicate keys or lossy numbers, and the payment requirement with explicit wallet authorization. These go beyond the structured annotations and clarify the tool's operational behavior.

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 sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: core operation, edge-case handling, and payment authorization. No filler or repetition.

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?

Given the tool has 5 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the core redaction behavior but omits parameter semantics, output format, error reporting details (what 'reports missing paths' looks like), and how to provide wallet authorization. An agent would struggle to correctly supply all parameters without additional info.

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 explain parameters. It only indirectly references the 'pointers' concept via 'RFC 6901-style JSON object paths' but does not describe the 'json' input, 'result_expires', 'idempotency_key', 'result_signature', or 'payment_signature' parameters. The payment mention hints at 'payment_signature' but lacks detail. This is insufficient for a 5-parameter tool.

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 verb 'remove' with the resource 'explicitly named RFC 6901-style JSON object paths' and specifies the exact behavior for array elements (replace with null to preserve indices). It also distinguishes itself from automatic detection, which helps differentiate from potential sibling tools like a generic redaction tool.

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 explicitly says 'Does not automatically detect sensitive information,' which tells the agent when to use this tool (when paths are known) and when not (when automatic detection is needed). However, it does not name a specific alternative tool or provide explicit when/not conditions beyond that, but the context is clear enough.

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