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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that proof of npub ownership is required, that this is a sensitive write to the credential vault, and that it is free. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the plain 'delete' semantics. It does not cover idempotency or behavior when the field is missing, but the provided context is strong.

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 short, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence conveys information: targeted deletion, non-destructive scope, cost, and auth requirement. The first two sentences are mildly redundant ('Remove' and 'Deletes'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: what is deleted, what is preserved, the proof requirement, the sensitive-write nature, and the cost. It does not explain when to prefer sibling credential tools, but the description is otherwise complete enough for safe invocation.

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 the input schema fully documents each parameter. The description does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable under the baseline. It only loosely reinforces the 'field' parameter via 'one field.'

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a single patron credential field' and 'Deletes one field from stored credentials.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like taxsort_delete_operator_credential by specifying 'patron' and from update-style tools by specifying deletion.

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 when to use the tool: when deleting exactly one patron credential field while preserving others. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as using taxsort_forget_credentials for bulk removal or taxsort_update_patron_credential for edits. Usage context is present but left to inference.

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