Token Delete

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: what destruction entails (removes the placed token, not the linked sheet/HP; removes combatants and repairs initiative order), no undo tool, and repeat-call behavior (token absent but may return not-found). All of this is consistent with the annotations rather than contradicting them.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the alternative tools, then back-loaded with behavioral and return details. It is dense but mostly earns its place; a couple of clauses (restating destructiveness, error paragraph) slightly overlap with what annotations and the output schema already carry.

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?

Very complete: it covers the mutation's side effects, idempotent-effect behavior, the {ok/data/error} return contract, and where diagnostics surface, while an output schema exists to carry structured returns. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% and both params are fully documented there, including the token-vs-character-ID distinction. The description reinforces that same distinction but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource and scope ('Delete one token from a campaign map (DM only)'), and explicitly names the sibling alternatives (token_move, token_hp_update). An agent can distinguish this from token_move/token_add without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use token_move to reposition, token_hp_update for HP edits, and clarifies token_delete takes a map token ID rather than a character ID. It even warns not to send a second initiative write, which is actionable when-to-use guidance.

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