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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description carries a lower burden but still adds genuine value: it scopes the destruction ('removes campaign references but does NOT delete the underlying vault character document') and discloses the permission requirement. This is exactly the contextual enrichment the rubric asks for beyond annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: the core action, the scope boundary, and the permission gate. No filler, no repetition of schema content, no vague boilerplate.

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 single-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, a full set of annotations, and an output schema present, the description covers everything an agent needs: what is affected, what is spared, and who is allowed to invoke it. Nothing material 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the sole parameter `id` is already fully documented as 'Mongo `_id` of the play character record.' The description contributes no additional parameter syntax, format, or constraint details, so the schema carries the heavy lifting and the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb-plus-resource construction ('Detach a character from play's tracking') and draws an explicit boundary against the destructive sibling 'vault_delete_character' by stating it does NOT delete the underlying vault document. An agent can immediately distinguish this from the many similar play_/vault_ tools.

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 gives clear invocation context: it names exactly what the operation does and doesn't do, which implicitly tells the agent when this tool is appropriate (detach tracking) versus deletion tools. The ownership/admin prerequisite is a concrete when-to-call condition. However, it never names a sibling alternative explicitly to complete the when/when-not guidance.

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