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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: session tags remain inert while unlinked and re-lit on re-link, dangling links to non-existent campaigns are still removed, and exact caller permissions are specified. This goes well beyond the idempotentHint and destructiveHint annotations and gives an agent a realistic picture of side effects.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: the core action, the inverse relationship, the inert-tag side effect, the dangling-link edge case, and the auth requirement. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 mutation tool with an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers all essential operational concerns: side effects, edge cases, permissions, and relationship semantics. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly appears to be 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%, so the schema already documents both `id` and `campaignId` adequately. The description adds a little semantic color around the link relationship and the dangling-campaign edge case, but does not materially extend parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a play campaign from an adventure's `playCampaignIds[]`.' It clearly differentiates this from the inverse link tool and from `imagine_unlink_world_from_campaign` by scoping the operation to adventures. The title and description consistently identify exactly what is being unlinked.

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 names its inverse (`imagine_link_adventure_to_campaign`) and gives clear context for when this operation applies. It also states the caller prerequisites. It stops short of explicitly listing sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the purpose is unambiguous enough for an agent to select the correct tool.

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