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

Beyond the destructive and idempotent annotations, it discloses exact-name matching, atomic refusal with no changes on invalid input, exclusion of non-draft and segment campaigns, and the dry_run preview path. This is strong behavioral detail for a destructive mutation tool.

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?

The description is two compact sentences, front-loads the core action, and then adds only the constraints and preview hint an agent needs. There is no redundant or filler text.

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?

Given the rich annotations, fully described schema, and absence of an output schema, the description covers the important operational constraints and preview behavior completely enough to call the tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics about exact-name matching, ambiguity handling, and refusal behavior. It also explains dry_run meaningfully as a preview of the resulting list set.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: removing one or more lists from a DRAFT campaign's recipients while keeping the others. It clearly distinguishes the operation from add_lists_to_campaign and from broader campaign updates.

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 when-to-use context and several when-not conditions: missing or ambiguous names, non-draft campaigns, segment campaigns, and removal of all remaining lists. It also recommends dry_run for previewing, though it does not explicitly name add_lists_to_campaign as the alternative for adding lists.

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