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

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: deactivation is non-destructive, content survives, reactivation restores it, the last active leg cannot be deactivated (400), and callers must be the campaign owner or an accepted gamemaster (403). These are exactly the side effects and constraints an agent needs to know.

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 three focused sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action, then covers the most important behavioral consequences, edge case, and permission boundary. Every sentence contributes necessary information.

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 annotations, output schema, and the tool's moderate complexity, the description is complete. It covers non-destructive behavior, UI effects, restoration semantics, failure conditions, and authorization. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call the tool safely.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that 'active' controls visibility and that ruleset selects the leg, but it does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already states. The schema itself already documents the active flag's behavior and ruleset's requiredness.

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: 'Toggle a campaign leg's `active` flag by ruleset.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like play_add_campaign_leg or play_update_campaign, which are about creating or editing campaign structure rather than toggling a leg's active state.

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: it toggles the active flag, hides or restores UI visibility, and never deletes content. It also states limitations such as refusing to deactivate the last active leg and permission requirements. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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