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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description adds the plan-requirement context but says nothing about whether deletion is permanent, what happens to episodes or media referencing the character, or failure modes for invalid ids.

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 short sentences, zero filler, with the action and scope front-loaded and the prerequisite following. Nothing could be trimmed without losing 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?

An output schema exists and annotations fully cover the destructive/idempotent profile, so those need not be restated. For a one-parameter mutation tool the description is close to complete; the only notable omission is whether the delete is reversible or cascades to dependent assets.

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 100% for the single required parameter ('Character id.'), so the schema already does the documenting. The description's phrase 'by id' and its framing of two character kinds adds only marginal semantic value beyond that.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ('Delete a saved consistent character or trained character by id') that also clarifies both character varieties are covered by one tool. An agent can distinguish it from create_character and list_characters without opening any schema, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings like delete_project.

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?

States a prerequisite ('Requires an active Revid plan'), which is genuinely useful gating information. However, there is no when-not guidance, no mention of how to obtain the id (e.g., list_characters), and no note on alternatives or consequences, so usage is only partially framed.

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