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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses the resulting state ('move to closed'), irreversibility across two named sibling tools, that conversations remain readable, an optional side effect when searchId is passed, and that credits are not refunded despite being free. This is exactly the mutation context an agent needs before acting.

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?

Three tight sentences: outcome first, then the optional-parameter side effect, then cost and usage trigger. No filler, and the irreversible consequence is front-loaded.

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?

Complete enough to call safely: outcome state, irreversibility, cost, and the optional parameter's effect are all covered. Only minor gaps remain, such as what the return payload looks like, which matters little for a no-output-schema tool.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above that by explaining the optional searchId effect (dropping the creator from that search's results, tied to get_search) rather than leaving it as 'a search to drop the creator from as well'.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('Takes a creator out of a campaign') and immediately scopes it with 'for good' and the closed-state outcome, which distinguishes it from sibling removal tools like unsave_creator or remove-style operations on saved lists.

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 an explicit trigger ('Use it when the user rules a creator out') and clarifies what it is not by noting add_creator and reveal_contact cannot undo it. It does not name a direct alternative for softer removal, but the when-to-use guidance is clear.

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