Token Delete

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds valuable specifics: deletion is irreversible, repeated deletion may return a not-found error, the linked character sheet and HP are unaffected, and REST permission errors preserve upstream diagnostics. This goes well beyond the structured annotations.

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 description is dense but well-organized, with the core purpose and alternatives first, followed by behavioral caveats and return semantics. The return/error breakdown is somewhat verbose but earned given the tool's destructive, no-undo nature and the need to distinguish tool-body failures from MCP errors.

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 is complete for a destructive DM-only tool: it covers access restrictions, alternatives, side effects, idempotency behavior, no-undo consequences, and error/return semantics. An agent has enough information to decide when to invoke this tool and what to expect.

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 map_id and token_id. The description adds important semantic context by emphasizing that the ID is a map token ID, not a character sheet ID, and by clarifying that deletion removes only the placed token, not the linked sheet or HP. This helps an agent understand the real meaning of the parameters.

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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Delete one token from a campaign map (DM only).' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from token_move and token_hp_update by naming what each sibling does differently, so an agent can select this tool without ambiguity.

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 explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use token_move for repositioning, use token_hp_update for HP changes, and states that token_delete takes a map token ID rather than a character ID. It also clarifies DM-only access and explains that initiative entries are not managed.

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