foundry_remove_from_encounter

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

The description only restates the removal action without explaining consequences (e.g., whether tokens are deleted or just removed from the encounter), permission requirements, or the meaning of 'selected' vs 'named'. The readOnlyHint: false annotation already signals mutation, but the description adds no additional behavioral context and even introduces ambiguity.

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 a single, easily readable sentence and is appropriately front-loaded with the primary action. However, it is too terse to be considered well-structured for a tool with 5 parameters, as it lacks necessary elaboration.

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 mutating tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no required fields, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to select an encounter, whether 'selected' refers to canvas selection, what 'uuids' represent (token IDs? actor IDs?), or what the result of the removal is. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based solely on the provided information.

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?

With only 40% schema description coverage (userId and clientId), the description fails to compensate. The phrase 'selected or named tokens' hints at the 'selected' and 'uuids' parameters, but it does not clarify their semantics, mutual exclusivity, or how the 'encounter' parameter should be specified. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 clearly identifies the action 'remove' and the resource 'tokens from an encounter', distinguishing it from sibling tools like foundry_add_to_encounter and foundry_remove_effect. However, 'selected or named tokens' is ambiguous because there is no 'name' parameter; the uuids array is the likely identifier but not explicitly tied to 'named'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as removing effects or ending an encounter. There are no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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