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

No annotations provided, so description carries the burden. It discloses the need for two proofs and the security risk of missing authority_proof. Does not detail side effects, idempotency, or rate limits, but covers the essential behavioral trait for a removal 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?

Two well-structured paragraphs with the purpose stated first. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Efficient use of space to convey key 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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, required proofs, and security rationale. Lacks details on error handling or post-removal state, but is sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema covers 2 of 3 parameters (npub, authority_proof) with descriptions; dpop_token is undocumented. The description adds context for authority_proof by explaining its role and necessity, but does not explain dpop_token or provide additional guidance beyond schema.

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 starts with 'Remove an Operator from the DPYC community registry', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from sibling `authority_register_operator` by being the inverse 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?

Explicitly states required proofs and the consequence of lacking authority_proof. Implies when to use (with required proofs) and warns against unauthorized removal. Could mention alternatives like `authority_register_operator` for the opposite action, but the context is clear.

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