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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the operation as a write to a sensitive vault, the requirement of ownership proof, and that it is free. It adds context about the scope (only one field) but does not detail reversibility or rate limits.

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 concise (5 lines) with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and key points: effect, cost, requirement. Every sentence earns its place.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown) and 100% schema parameter coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the operation, prerequisites, and side effects. It could mention suggesting prior retrieval of fields to know which to delete, but is still adequate.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema; it only mentions 'Proof of npub ownership' which relates to dpop_token. No enrichment of field meaning.

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?

Description clearly states 'Remove a single patron credential field.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like cypher_update_patron_credential by emphasizing deletion of one field without affecting others.

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 implies usage when a single credential field needs to be removed, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with alternatives like update or get fields. It mentions the prerequisite of proof of npub ownership but lacks exclusions.

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