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

Adds real information beyond the annotations: the operation is reversible (re-adding restores), unknown ids are silently ignored, and the response contains a 'removed' count. This is consistent with the declared idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false. It does not cover permissions or what happens with an invalid listId.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and batch limit, each carrying distinct information — no restatement of the title or padding.

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 2-parameter, non-destructive tool with no output schema, it covers effect, reversibility, batch limit, and return value. Error behavior for a missing/invalid listId is the only notable omission.

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 only 50% (contactIds has no schema description), and the description fills that gap by stating ids are contact ids, capped at 100 per call, and that ids not on the list are ignored. listId is documented by the schema itself, so the remaining coverage gap is covered.

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 — taking contacts off a list — and scopes it by contact id. It is clearly distinguishable from lnkdrp_delete_contact (which deletes the contact) and lnkdrp_delete_contact_list, but it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 contacts stay in the workspace; adding them again puts them back' gives the agent clear decision context: this removes membership, not the contact itself. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or stating exclusions, so it is not a full 5.

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