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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by clarifying scope of destruction: only the audience membership is removed while the contact record is preserved, which softens and disambiguates the destructive hint.

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 brief sentences with zero waste, and the core action is front-loaded before the clarifying constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple two-parameter removal with rich annotations and fully documented schema, the description covers the essential nuance (contact retained). Only minor omissions remain, such as behavior when the subscriber is not in the audience.

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 100% and both parameters (id, subscriber_id) are documented in the schema. The description adds no format, syntax, or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (remove) and resource (subscriber from an audience), and the second sentence 'The contact is kept' distinguishes the effect from delete-contact or bulk-remove siblings. An agent can tell exactly what changes and what survives.

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?

Usage is implied by the name and by the 'contact is kept' clarification, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative (e.g., bulk-remove-audience-subscribers or delete-contact) referenced. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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