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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the operation deletes vaulted credentials, always requires proof of npub ownership, and is destructive. This is strong transparency for a mutating tool.

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 three tight sentences with no filler. The action and destructive consequence are front-loaded, and the operator/patron nuance is concise. Every sentence adds useful information.

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 3-parameter tool with a rich output schema and detailed dpop_token documentation in the schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies what is deleted, how to pick npub, and the required proof. The only notable gap is the lack of guidance distinguishing this tool from the delete_* sibling tools.

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 covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the operator/patron distinction for the npub parameter and reinforcing that the deletion destroys credentials, going beyond the schema's generic descriptions.

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 has a clear verb and resource: 'Delete vaulted credentials for a specific service and npub.' It also adds useful operator-vs-patron context. However, it does not differentiate this tool from sibling deletion tools like goodearth_delete_operator_credential and goodearth_delete_patron_credential, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 gives within-tool guidance about which npub to pass for operator vs patron credentials, but it never states when to choose this tool over the sibling delete_* tools or when to avoid it. With multiple credential-deletion siblings present, the lack of explicit alternatives leaves the agent to infer selection criteria.

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