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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description doesn't need to restate destructiveness. It adds useful context beyond annotations: the scope of deletion (map vs. world) and the dependency on token-list for finding the ID. This helps the agent anticipate the precise side effect.

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 short sentences deliver the core action, a prerequisite, and a crucial scope clarification with zero filler. The information is front-loaded 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 simple destructive operation with two parameters, the description, combined with the annotations and 100% schema coverage, fully covers what the agent needs: what is removed, how to find the tokenId, and that sceneId is optional via the schema. A no-output-schema delete tool needs no return-value documentation.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented clearly in the input schema. The description reinforces that tokenId comes from token-list but adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('a token from the scene'), and explicitly clarifies that this removes the token from the map, not the actor from the world, distinguishing it from the sibling actor-delete tool. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately understandable.

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?

It gives a concrete prerequisite ('Use token-list to find tokenId') and the scope clarification ('not the actor from the world') implicitly warns against using this tool when the intent is to delete the underlying actor. It doesn't name the alternative tool explicitly, but the guidance is sufficient for correct selection among siblings.

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