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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the real operational constraint (campaign must be paused first), the scope limit on conditions, and the fact that the response is a verified deleted step — all genuine context beyond structured fields.

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?

Four short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the destructive precondition and the ID source lead. Minor deduction for the line-broken formatting and the unlabeled trailing workspace note.

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 destructive, open-world mutation the description covers prerequisites, ID sourcing, return value (with an output schema also present), and workspace scoping. The only missing piece an agent would need is the meaning and default behavior of validate_only.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the burden, and it only partly does: step_id's origin and workspace's optionality (single-workspace case) are explained. campaign_id and especially validate_only (a dry-run flag on a destructive operation) are left undocumented, which is a meaningful gap.

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 (delete a sequence step) and immediately anchors the identifier by naming the sibling that produces step_id (lemlist_get_sequence). An agent can separate it from lemlist_add_sequence_step and lemlist_update_sequence_step without opening the 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?

Gives explicit preconditions and ordering: only for non-running campaigns, and the campaign must be paused first via lemlist_pause_campaign. It also warns that step conditions cannot be set through this tool and must be handled in the lemlist UI, which prevents a whole class of misuse.

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