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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, which is a weak signal, so the description carries the real burden and does: it explicitly says the operation is permanent, refunds nothing, and requires a fully emptied base. That is exactly the irreversible-destruction warning an agent needs before invoking.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and effect, followed by a dense parenthetical that reads as a checklist. Every item in the emptiness list is operationally relevant, though the run-on enumeration is long enough to slightly strain readability.

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 destructive, permission-gated tool with no output schema, the description covers permission requirements, state preconditions, required preparatory steps, and irreversibility with no refund. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether it can call this is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (session_id) and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds no parameter-level detail, but for a single well-documented parameter the baseline of 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('permanently decommission') and a precise resource ('empty faction mobile base'), which separates it cleanly from siblings like move_faction_mobile_base, jump_faction_mobile_base, and dismantle_outpost. The word 'empty' plus 'permanently' front-loads the two defining characteristics.

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?

Gives strong preconditions: ManageBases permission, base must be stationary and out of combat, 'Dismantle all production and weapon facilities first,' and a full list of things that must be cleared. It does not name an alternative tool or state when-not to use it, but the gating context is clear enough to act on.

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