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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive framing is not new; what the description adds is the blast radius ('existing running deployments may fail') and the two artifacts affected (Vault material and the metadata row). It stops short of saying whether deletion is recoverable or what happens on a second call, but the idempotentHint annotation covers the latter.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the mechanism first and the operational warning second. Every clause carries information an agent needs before invoking a destructive tool.

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 destructive tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose, side effects, and the safer alternative, which is close to sufficient. The only real hole is the meaning of the single required parameter, which neither schema nor description pins down.

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?

There is one parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions 'id' at all — it does not say whether it is a credential id, where to obtain it, or whether the uuid identifies the Vault entry or the metadata row. With no schema text to fall back on, this gap is unmitigated.

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 and resource ('Deletes broker credential material') plus the exact scope of the mutation ('from Vault and marks the authenticated user's metadata row deleted'). That level of specificity clearly separates it from update_broker_credential and the read-only broker_* siblings.

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?

Gives a concrete when-not-to-use rule: don't delete a credential an active deployment depends on, create a new credential and redeploy instead. This is real routing guidance, though it does not state the positive case where deletion is the right action (e.g., cleaning up an unused credential).

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