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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses important behavioral nuance: removal targets the leg matching the item's own ruleset, the optional ruleset parameter only confirms rather than retargets, and a mismatch returns 400. It also states the required permission. This adds substantial value over the structured annotation fields.

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 concise sentences: the main action, the critical ruleset behavior, and the permission requirement. Every sentence carries necessary information and is front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 mutation with an output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers permission requirements, edge-case behavior (ruleset mismatch), and the core removal semantics. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for the ruleset parameter—clarifying that it never retargets and only confirms the target leg, with a 400 on mismatch—which goes beyond the schema's enum and description. itemId and campaignId are straightforward and already well documented.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Remove a vault item from a campaign's allowlist.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_remove_campaign_player, play_remove_campaign_rule, and play_remove_campaign_spell, which target different resource types.

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 the tool is appropriate: removing a vault item from a campaign allowlist, and it specifies a prerequisite ('Caller must have 'contribute''). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the resource-specific wording and sibling names make the intended usage unambiguous.

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