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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate those. The description adds useful context about the combatantId being distinct from actorId, but doesn't disclose what happens to the combatant's token, whether the combatant is permanently deleted or just removed from the current combat, or whether the combat must be active. With annotations covering the basic safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 short sentences with zero waste. The core action is front-loaded, the critical identifier warning is second, and the usage condition is third. Every sentence 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 simple two-parameter removal tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It covers the action, the key parameter source, and the usage scenario. The only minor gap is not describing what happens after removal (e.g., is the combatant deleted or just removed from the encounter?), but this is a small omission for a straightforward 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description reinforces that combatantId comes from combat-get and is NOT actorId, which adds practical meaning beyond the schema. However, it doesn't add detail about combatId's 'active combat if omitted' behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ('Remove combatant from combat') and immediately distinguishes the key identifier from a common confusion ('not same as actorId'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like combat-set-combatant-defeated and combat-toggle-combatant-visibility by focusing on removal from the encounter.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('when creature flees or is removed from encounter') and tells the agent to use combat-get to find the correct combatantId. This provides clear context and a direct alternative/helper tool reference.

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