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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact — "Contacts are kept" — clarifying the removal is from the audience only. However, it says nothing about how ids and filter parameters combine, whether all_matching is required for filter mode, or what happens when both are supplied.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the clarifying constraint. No filler.

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 6-parameter destructive mutation with no output schema and low schema coverage, the description should explain the filter parameters and the role of all_matching. It leaves four of six parameters unexplained and doesn't resolve how ids and filters interact.

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 only 33%: id and ids are documented in the schema, but search, engagement, subscribed, and all_matching carry no descriptions anywhere. The description gestures at "a filter" without naming which parameters form it or explaining all_matching, which is a significant gap for a destructive bulk operation.

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 and resource ("Remove many subscribers from an audience") and reveals the two operating modes (explicit ids vs. filter-matched). It does not differentiate itself from the very similar sibling bulk-remove-contacts-from-audience, which leaves a real ambiguity for selection.

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 two modes imply when each applies (targeted removal by id vs. bulk removal by filter), which is more than nothing. But there is no explicit guidance on choosing between this tool and bulk-remove-contacts-from-audience or remove-audience-subscriber, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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