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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the destructive nature is clear. The description adds the rationale (removing obsolete or compromised secrets) but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as irreversibility, cascading effects on dependent resources, or permission requirements. With annotations covering the core safety profile, the description contributes modestly but does not contradict.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and key parameter (ID) immediately, followed by a brief usage note. There is no unnecessary verbiage or repetition of schema details. It is optimally concise.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be described. With two parameters (one required) and clear annotations (destructive, idempotent), the description covers the purpose and usage adequately. It does not mention prerequisites or post-conditions, but for a simple delete operation with full schema and annotations, this is nearly complete. The only minor gap is not explicitly stating permanence, though destructiveHint implies it.

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 100%: both 'id' and 'agentId' have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 the exact operation: delete a credential from vault storage by ID. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like vault_credential_create, vault_credential_update, and vault_credential_get by specifying the deletion action and the target resource. No ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 a clear use case: 'Use to remove obsolete or compromised secrets.' This gives the agent context on when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives (e.g., vault_credential_update for changing a credential), but the purpose is specific enough that this is a minor gap.

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