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

Goes far beyond the lone readOnlyHint=false annotation: discloses permanence, no refund, the ManageBases permission requirement, and a full list of preconditions that would otherwise cause failures. This is exactly the destructive-operation context an agent needs before calling.

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-loads the action, then packs prerequisites and consequences into one dense parenthetical. Every clause earns its place, though the long emptiness enumeration makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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 permanent, irreversible mutation with no output schema and one trivial parameter, the description covers permissions, preconditions, required sequencing, and consequences. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely 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 meaning, which matches the baseline for a fully covered single-param tool.

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 (decommission) plus resource (faction mobile base) and a scope qualifier (permanently, empty). It is clearly distinct from siblings like move_faction_mobile_base, jump_faction_mobile_base, or dismantle_outpost.

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 rich preconditions: base must be stationary, out of combat, and empty of an enumerated list of contents, with a required ordering step (dismantle facilities and offices first). It does not name sibling alternatives (e.g., move or jump the base instead, or dismantle_outpost for outposts), so routing guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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