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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: the old address stops routing immediately, every player must switch, confirmation is required, and the operation is GM-only. This substantially exceeds what 'destructiveHint: true' alone conveys and gives an agent the necessary risk framing.

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 two sentences, efficiently front-loading the core action and then the critical consequences. Every clause earns its place: leak recovery, immediate routing stop, player impact, user confirmation, and GM-only restriction.

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 destructive, non-obvious operation, the description covers all essential context: why to call it, what will happen, who is allowed, and what prerequisite coordination is needed. With an output schema and clear parameter documentation present, nothing necessary for correct invocation 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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter campaignId is already well-documented as a Mongo _id. The description does not need to add parameter detail, but it also does not add anything beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 clearly states a specific action ('Mint a fresh inbound address for the campaign') and identifies the purpose via 'leak recovery'. It also explains the concrete consequence—old address stops routing immediately—which distinguishes this from any similar-looking play_* 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 context for when to use it: as leak recovery, with the explicit directives to confirm with the user first and only for GMs. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but none of the siblings appear to be a direct substitute, so the guidance is sufficient.

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