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

Beyond the destructiveHint annotation, it discloses that deletion also removes the value, reader list, and reading record, and that the action cannot be undone. It further explains who is authorized to perform the deletion, which is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a destructive 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 front-loaded with the destructive action and cascade, followed by authorization and the safer alternative. Every sentence contributes useful information without repetition.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description covers irreversibility, cascading data loss, authorization, and the safer alternative. There are no material gaps for correct 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 coverage is 100%, and the single id parameter is already documented in the schema as coming from list_credentials. The description repeats that source but adds no further syntax, format, or validation semantics beyond the 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?

It states a specific verb and resource: remove a credential by id. It also names the cascading effects and distinguishes the operation from update_credential, so an agent can identify exactly what this tool does among the credential-related siblings.

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 explicit authorization constraints: only the person who attached the credential and the project lead may delete it. It also names the alternative for a narrower access change: use update_credential's 'readers' to remove one person's access.

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