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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the destructive nature is known. The description adds the key behavioral detail 'without confirmation', which is not in the annotations. This informs the agent that no user confirmation step will occur, which is valuable beyond the structured hints. 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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, followed by the usage condition. Every word earns its place, and the description is easily scannable for an agent.

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 simple destructive action with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the usage context, and the behavioral nuance (no confirmation). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to correctly invoke this tool.

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?

The schema description for combatId states 'Combat ID (uses active combat if omitted)', covering the parameter's meaning and optionality. The tool description does not add any additional parameter guidance, so with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 applies. The parameter is adequately documented in the schema itself.

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 the verb 'Delete', the resource 'combat encounter', and adds 'immediately without confirmation' for precision. It clearly distinguishes from other combat tools like combat-create or combat-get, and its specificity leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 an explicit condition: 'Use when combat is over or cancelled.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it doesn't mention explicit alternatives or when not to use it. Given the sibling set includes many combat tools, the guidance is adequate but not exhaustive.

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