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

Annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=true, readOnly=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the 100-item ceiling, which merely restates the schema's maxItems and says nothing about whether removal is reversible, whether it affects subscription status, or how it differs from deleting the contact outright.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler — the scope and limit land first. It is efficient, though efficiency tips into under-specification for a destructive operation.

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?

This is a destructive, non-annotated-for-reversibility mutation with a confusingly similar sibling set, no output schema, and no explanation of the resulting state after removal. For that complexity level, one sentence is not sufficient to invoke it confidently.

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%, including the `con_xxx`/`aud_xxx` ID formats and the maxItems constraint, so the description need not carry parameter detail. The single added fact ("up to 100") is already in the schema, so the description contributes nothing beyond baseline.

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?

Specific verb plus resource ("Remove ... contacts from an audience") and a stated batch ceiling, so the operation is immediately graspable. However, it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling `bulk-remove-audience-subscribers`, leaving the agent unable to tell which of the two to call.

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 when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is named. With siblings like `bulk-remove-audience-subscribers`, `remove-audience-subscriber`, and `bulk-delete-contacts` in the list, the absence of routing guidance is a real cost.

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