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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it identifies the exact data structure modified (`playCampaignIds[]`), describes the optional house-rule removal side effect, and states permission requirements. This goes well beyond the readOnly/destructive/idempotent hints while not contradicting them.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose and core effect, optional flag behavior, and access prerequisites. No filler or redundancy.

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, the description covers the operation, optional side effect, and authorization requirements. It is missing only minor contextual details such as behavior when the link does not exist, but the idempotentHint annotation partially covers that.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds a bit of shared context around `removeSyncedHouseRules`, but does not substantially extend the parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 begins with a specific verb and object: 'Unlink a play campaign from a world,' and then states the exact mechanism: 'removes the campaign from the world's `playCampaignIds[]`.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling unlink tools for adventures and makes the tool's function unambiguous.

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 provides concrete usage context: when to add `removeSyncedHouseRules: true` and explicit caller requirements ('The caller must be the campaign's owner or gamemaster. Caller must have 'edit' access on the world.'). It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the intended use case is clear and the guidance is actionable.

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