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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the key trait that deletion is permanent/irreversible, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits permission/auth requirements, behavior when the name does not exist, and whether the operation is idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the destructive qualifier ('Permanently') placed first. No filler or redundancy.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, the description should say more about irreversibility consequences, error cases, and workspace scoping; it covers only the core action and the permanence flag.

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 coverage is only 50%: the 'workspace' parameter is documented in the schema, but 'name' has no description. The phrase 'by name' weakly signals that name is the lookup key, but adds no format, uniqueness, or case-sensitivity detail, so the gap is only partially compensated.

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?

States a specific verb (delete), a specific resource (a secret in this account's vault), and the lookup key (by name). This clearly separates it from sibling reads/writes such as wyrm_vault_get, wyrm_vault_list, and wyrm_vault_put without needing the schema.

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 no when-to-use guidance: it never says when deletion is appropriate versus overwriting via wyrm_vault_put, nor does it state prerequisites or what to do if the secret is absent. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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