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

Annotations already declare destructive=true and idempotent=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond annotations: the character's handle stops working in prompts immediately, telling the agent the effect is instant and user-visible. It stops short of stating irreversibility or whether the character can be recreated.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and target, followed by the consequence. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

With one required param, no output schema, and annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description supplies what an agent needs: what is deleted, where the id comes from, and the immediate effect. Lacking only a note on whether deletion is reversible.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds provenance for the single parameter by naming list_characters as where the `id` comes from, which is meaning the schema does not carry.

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 account's characters') and scopes it to the account, which separates it from delete_reference and other siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with any alternative delete/create sibling, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Points the agent to list_characters as the source of the required `id`, which is useful routing, but gives no when-not-to-delete guidance, no prerequisite/permission note, and no note about confirming before irreversible removal.

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