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

The description goes well beyond the annotations, disclosing the ordering of side effects ('clears the link on play's side first, then on imagine's side'), the optional house-rule cleanup behavior controlled by `removeSyncedHouseRules`, and the caller permission requirement. This gives the agent a realistic model of what will happen during invocation.

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?

The description is three sentences with no filler. Purpose comes first, followed by side-effect ordering, optional parameter guidance, and the access prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place.

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 link-unlink operation, the description covers the action, side-effect order, optional cleanup, and access requirement. An output schema exists, so return-value details are unnecessary, and the operation's idempotent nature is already captured in annotations. Nothing critical is 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; the 'two-way' ordering is behavior rather than parameter semantics, and the `removeSyncedHouseRules` explanation largely echoes the schema.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Unlink a play campaign from a world.' This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling adventure-unlink tool by specifying 'play campaign' and 'world' as the objects involved, so an agent can identify the correct operation without opening 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?

The description establishes clear context for use: it unlinks a play campaign from a world, and it notes the two-way nature of the operation and required 'edit' access. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the resource nouns make the intended scenario obvious enough that the agent can route correctly.

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