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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does it well: it discloses the destructive scope (value, reader list, and the read-record are all removed), that the action is irreversible ('cannot be brought back'), and the authorization requirement (attacher or project lead). These are exactly the traits an agent needs before invoking a destructive 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 verb+resource and the destructive cascade are front-loaded, followed by the permission constraint and the routing hint. Every clause adds actionable information; none is filler.

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 one-parameter destructive tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers effect, cascading side effects, reversibility, authorization, and the safer alternative. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100% and the single parameter already documents 'Credential id, from list_credentials.' The description repeats that provenance without adding format, range, or lookup detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Remove) and resource (credential), and pins the identifier source to list_credentials. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling update_credential, so an agent can separate it from related credential tools without reading any 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?

Gives an explicit alternative and the condition that selects it: revoking a single person's access should go through update_credential's 'readers' rather than this destructive tool. It also states who is permitted to invoke it, which is real usage guidance, not just context.

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