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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: exactly what is destroyed (campaign references), what is preserved (the vault document), and the authorization model required.

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 tight sentences: the operation, the non-destructive caveat, then the permission model, ordered by importance. No filler or repetition.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Scope, side effects, and auth are all present; only reversibility/re-add semantics are left unstated, a minor gap for this tool.

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% with a single well-described 'id' parameter, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no format or usage detail for the parameter, making 3 the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Detach a character from play's tracking') and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling vault_delete_character by noting it 'does NOT delete the underlying vault character document.' An agent can route between the two without opening either 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?

Gives clear caller conditions ('must own the character, be an admin with Admin Mode on, or be the GM of the character's campaign'), which tells the agent who may invoke it. It implies but never explicitly states when to prefer this over vault_delete_character, so it stops short of a full when/when-not routing statement.

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