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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states the immediate consequence – bearer JWTs from the removed issuer stop authenticating – which is the critical behavioral trait for a destructive config change. It doesn't mention reversibility or permission requirements, but the most important runtime impact is disclosed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and follows with the key consequence. It contains no filler, repetitive wording, or redundant schema echoes.

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 two-parameter mutating tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, scope, and immediate side effect, which is sufficient for basic invocation. It doesn't address error cases or idempotency, but those are secondary given the schema already covers the parameters.

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 both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema – it only refers to the issuer generically and doesn't elaborate on `tenant_key` or value formats.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('OAuth issuers'), and clarifies scope ('this tenant's registered'). The consequence clause ('bearer JWTs from it stop authenticating immediately') further distinguishes it from listing or setting issuers, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings host.oauth.issuers and host.oauth.issuer_set.

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 provides clear context that this tool targets an already-registered tenant issuer, implying it should be used for revocation rather than registration or listing. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the verb and resource make the use case unambiguous.

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