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

Annotations indicate mutating, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds critical context beyond annotations: the two-way mirror removal and the session tag behavior (left inert, re-lit on re-link). It also discloses the authorization requirement. No contradiction with annotations; this fully informs the agent 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?

Four sentences, each packed with essential information: core action, inverse, two-way mirror behavior, and authorization. No filler, front-loaded with the primary action. Excellent structure.

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 two-way link removal with mirror effects and session tag nuance, the description is complete. It covers prerequisites, side effects, and the inverse. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is unnecessary. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.

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% and both parameters are well-described in the schema (adventure _id, campaign _id with source). The description does not add extra parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so 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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), the resource (adventure's playCampaignIds[]), and the inverse relationship to imagine_link_adventure_to_campaign. It distinguishes itself clearly from the sibling link tool and other unlink tools by naming the exact array and the two-way mirror behavior.

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?

It explicitly states prerequisites: caller must be campaign owner/gamemaster and have edit access on the adventure. It identifies itself as the inverse of the link tool, which implies when to use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with other unlink tools (e.g., imagine_unlink_world_from_campaign) or state when not to use it, so a 4 is appropriate.

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