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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so thoroughly. It reveals idempotency (already-absent fields report removed: false without rewriting the vault), the vault-keyed behavior for untemplated fields, and authentication requirements (nsec-signed kind-27235 or cached dpop_token). It also flags destructiveness explicitly, which is critical for a delete operation.

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 longer than average but every sentence contributes unique operational or selection information. The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by usage context, edge-case behavior, and security constraints. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 destructive, restricted mutation with no annotations and an output schema present, the description is unusually complete. It covers what is deleted, what is preserved, idempotent behavior, authentication requirements, access restrictions, and how it differs from the closest sibling. The agent has everything needed to call the tool safely and correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the property descriptions. It explains that 'field' may be templated or untemplated and that deletion is keyed on what is vaulted, not the current template. For 'dpop_token', it clarifies the accepted proof forms and that patron proofs are rejected, which is essential for correct invocation.

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 opens with a precise verb and resource, 'Remove a single operator secret field,' and immediately clarifies scope: it deletes one key from the operator's encrypted credential blob without touching others. It explicitly positions itself as the field-level counterpart to forget_credentials, which wipes the whole row, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools.

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 concrete when-to-use guidance, such as retiring a leftover after an SDK cutover or removing a stored-but-untemplated orphan, and contrasts it with the alternative forget_credentials for wiping the whole row. It also states restrictions: it is RESTRICTED to the operator, patron proofs are rejected, and it is destructive like a write, which helps an agent decide whether to invoke it.

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