Remove combatants

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

Annotations already mark destructive=true, but the description adds genuinely important behavioral details: initiative is lost, tokens remain on the scene, and any unknown id aborts the entire operation. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and protects the agent from assuming physical token deletion or partial success.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, followed by the two most decision-relevant consequences.

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?

The description covers the key behavioral consequences (initiative, tokens, all-or-nothing failure) and works with the rich schema and destructive/idempotent annotations. It does not describe the return value, but no output schema exists and the essential call semantics are present.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description reinforces that combatantIds and tokenIds are alternative ways to identify what to remove and that an unknown id blocks everything, but it does not add substantial detail beyond the parameter descriptions.

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 ('combatants from a combat encounter'), and clarifies identification by combatant id or token id. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like add-combatants, update-combatant, and change-combat-turn.

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 makes the removal use case obvious and explains core mechanics, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this over related tools such as add-combatants or update-combatant. Usage is implied rather than contrasted.

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