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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the real burden and delivers: failure mode (dismantle refused if storage isn't emptied so nothing is lost), no founding-fee refund, cargo-space requirement, and the post-condition that you're set adrift at the POI. This is far beyond what the single annotation conveys.

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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by prerequisites and consequences in a logical order. It is dense with parentheticals and restates the docking condition twice, so it is slightly heavier than strictly necessary, but nearly 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 mutation tool with no output schema and only one param, the description covers prerequisites, failure behavior, side effects, and post-conditions thoroughly. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke correctly.

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?

One parameter (session_id) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no param-specific detail, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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?

Specific verb (dismantle) plus resource (a faction outpost you're docked at) plus the concrete outcome (packed into an Outpost Kit returned to cargo). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like build_outpost, decommission_faction_mobile_base, and faction_dismantle, which it explicitly routes to for ranches.

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?

Explicit preconditions and exclusions: must be docked at one of your faction's outposts, not a full station; requires ManageBases permission; storage must be emptied first; a ranch must be dismantled first with faction_dismantle; in-progress facility dismantling must finish. This is a clear when/when-not with a named alternative.

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