offsets__delist_credit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the credit is removed only from the active fill path, that listing and retirement history are retained, that the call is idempotent, and that gateway state-change authentication is required. It does not describe failure modes or what happens to in-flight fills, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the operational gate ('Admin operation') and effect scope, followed by the idempotency and auth notes. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant.

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 no-annotation admin mutation with a 0%-documented two-parameter schema and no output schema, the description covers effect, retention, idempotency, and auth well. It still leaves the required 'reason' parameter and any error/permission specifics unexplained, so it is adequate but not complete.

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 0% and both credit_id and reason are required, yet the description says nothing about either. In particular, 'reason' is an unexplained required field, and the description does not compensate for the schema's complete lack of documentation.

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/delist) and resource (credit), and precisely scopes the effect: 'remove a credit from the active fill path while retaining its listing and retirement history.' This distinguishes it from sibling operations like buy_offset or list_credit without the agent 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?

Labels the operation as an 'Admin operation' and notes idempotency for already-delisted credits, giving clear context on when it applies. However, it never names an alternative or an exclusion condition (e.g., when to relist instead of delist), so the routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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