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

The description discloses that it is a write to a sensitive credential vault, requires proof of ownership, and is free. It also states that other fields are unaffected. However, it does not mention reversibility, idempotency, or error behavior. With no annotations, this is a moderate disclosure but not exhaustive.

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, with the purpose stated in the first line and additional details in a second sentence. It avoids redundancy, front-loads the primary action, and every sentence adds value without waste.

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 description covers the essential context for a delete operation: what it does, its scope (single field), cost, and authentication requirement. Since an output schema exists, return values are not needed. It lacks details on idempotency or error handling, but these are minor given the full parameter schema and clear scope.

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 schema already fully documents all three parameters (npub, field, dpop_token) with detailed descriptions, including dpop_token's format and constraints. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 tool removes a single patron credential field, distinguishing it from updating or forgetting all credentials by specifying 'one field' and 'without affecting other fields'. It also identifies the resource as 'patron credential vault' and implies a write operation.

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 context that this is a write operation requiring proof of npub ownership and is free, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or conditions for when not to use it. An agent can infer usage from the description, but it lacks explicit routing to sibling tools like goodearth_update_patron_credential or goodearth_forget_credentials.

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