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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds the collateral damage detail annotations cannot convey: unsent drafts and queued sends are removed as well. It also states the permanence consequence (the contact cannot be re-added to that campaign), which is exactly the kind of pre-call warning an agent needs before a destructive operation.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the scope, then the destructive side effects, then the permanence caveat. The final sentence restating idempotency duplicates the idempotentHint annotation and could be dropped without loss.

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?

Behavior, side effects, and reversibility are fully covered for a destructive tool, and no output schema is needed since nothing is returned. The remaining gap is parameter identification, which is significant given 0% schema coverage and a nested required object with two UUIDs.

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 0% and both nested parameters (id, enrollmentId) are undocumented, yet the description never explains what either identifier refers to or where to obtain them. The phrase "that campaign" hints at enrollmentId but leaves the two UUIDs indistinguishable, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ("Removes a contact") plus the qualifying scope: never messaged, active or paused campaign, drafts prepared. That scope implicitly separates it from the bulk sibling removeUnmessagedCampaignContacts, but the sibling is never named, so an agent must infer the singular/bulk split.

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?

It gives clear preconditions for use — the contact must be unmessaged and in an active or paused campaign, and it explicitly confirms drafts do not disqualify removal. It does not say what to do instead when those conditions fail (e.g., pointing at moveContact or the bulk variant), so exclusions are missing.

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