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

Beyond the destructiveHint=true annotation, the description adds valuable context: removal targets the leg matching the rule's own ruleset, the `ruleset` parameter only confirms (never retargets), mismatch yields 400, and caller must have 'contribute'. This exceeds the annotation coverage and clarifies the operation's behavior.

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 with no filler: the first states the core purpose, the second explains the critical targeting nuance, and the third states the required permission. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, the unusual `ruleset` behavior, and the auth requirement. It doesn't spell out success/error responses beyond the 400 case, but the output schema and annotations reduce the need for that detail.

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%, and the description largely repeats what the `ruleset` parameter schema already states (confirmation only, no retargeting, 400 on mismatch). It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score 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 ('Remove') and resource ('vault rule') with a clear target ('campaign's allowlist'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like play_add_campaign_rule, play_remove_campaign_item, and vault_delete_rule. The purpose is immediately understood without needing to inspect 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 implies usage ('Remove a vault rule from a campaign's allowlist') but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or exclusion conditions, so an agent must infer the correct tool from the name and purpose alone.

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