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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and provides almost none. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the text never says whether the deletion is reversible, what happens if the reference is the character's primary image, or how the required expectedVersion affects the outcome.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the key scope word ('one') appears early. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.

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?

This is a destructive mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation, which is the worst-case combination for description dependence. Critical details an agent needs — concurrency behavior via expectedVersion, failure modes, and reversibility — are absent.

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 0% across three required parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only loosely gestures at referenceId ('one reference image'); projectId and especially expectedVersion — which clearly signals optimistic-concurrency semantics and a likely version-mismatch failure — go entirely unexplained.

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 ('Remove') and resource ('reference image') with a clear scope qualifier ('one', 'from a character's map'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling character.add_reference. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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 gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. An agent must infer from the tool name that the counterpart is character.add_reference, and nothing indicates what conditions should trigger a removal versus, say, character.update.

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