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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the contact is permanently removed, whether the operation is idempotent, what happens if the contact is not in the audience, or any side effects. The word 'Remove' implies mutation, but the actual behavior is not detailed enough for an agent to understand the consequences.

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, concise sentence that uses minimal words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the action. It lacks additional detail but does not waste words, so it earns a 4 for conciseness and structure.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), one might expect a higher score, but the description is still incomplete. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the audience must exist, the contact must be in the audience), the result (e.g., success or error messages), or any caveats like the difference between static and dynamic audiences. An agent can call it correctly from the schema, but it lacks important contextual details.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100% and all three parameters have descriptive names and brief descriptions (e.g., 'CRM contact ID', 'Audience ID', 'Active organization ID'). The description adds no further meaning beyond these, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, it does not clarify the relationship between audience_id and contact_id or clarify what 'Active organization ID' means in the context of removal.

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 'Remove a contact from a static audience' clearly states the action (remove) and the resource (contact from audience). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'add' and 'members' by indicating removal, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling 'audience_member_add' or clarify 'static audience', which could be ambiguous against dynamic audiences.

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 does not provide guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of when removal is appropriate, whether it is reversible, or how it relates to the audience member add tool. An agent might need to infer that this is the inverse of 'audience_member_add' but that is not stated.

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