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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description need not restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the cascade effect (removal from referencing campaigns/expeditions) and recommending a pre-deletion inspection step. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. The first sentence immediately states the action and target; the second delivers the critical caution and prerequisite. This is front-loaded, focused, and every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter delete operation, the description covers the essential concerns: permanence, cascade effects, and a recommended pre-step. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be in the description. Minor gaps remain (e.g., failure conditions if the character is referenced), but the description is complete enough for an agent to call it 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 description coverage is 100%; the schema already defines 'id' as the Mongo `_id` of the vault document. The description merely echoes 'by id' without adding further semantic detail (e.g., id format, validation constraints, or relationship to other resources). Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter meaning.

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 states a specific verb ('Permanently delete') and resource ('a character by id'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also differentiates from similar siblings like vault_delete_item or vault_delete_rule by explicitly targeting characters, and the 'vault' prefix separates it from play_delete_character.

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 provides clear context: deletion is permanent and cascades to campaigns/expeditions referencing the character. It gives a direct prerequisite ('Run vault_get_character first to inspect linkage'), which is actionable guidance, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or alternative tools like vault_unlink_character.

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