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

Annotations already declare destructive/idempotent behavior, and the description adds important consequences beyond them: the character record is permanently removed, while stored pictures and already-generated pictures/videos remain. That is exactly the residual-state information an agent needs before invoking a destructive delete.

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 compact sentences plus the bracketed operation type. The destructive nature and identifier source are front-loaded, and every sentence adds useful information.

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 tool with annotations covering safety flags and no output schema, the description supplies the key missing context: permanence of the record deletion, persistence of stored media, and how to obtain the UUID. Nothing essential for correct invocation is 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It does by explaining that `character_uuid` identifies the caller's character and can be obtained from `list_characters`; it does not add format details, but for a single required identifier this is sufficient.

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 and resource: delete one of the caller's characters. It also identifies the identifier source (`character_uuid` from `list_characters`), which distinguishes this from `edit_character`, `get_character`, and `delete_character_prompt`.

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?

Makes clear the operation is for deleting a character record and points to `list_characters` for obtaining the required UUID. It does not explicitly contrast with modifying or prompt-deletion siblings, but the context is clear enough for selection.

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