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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: people currently waiting on the step continue with the following step rather than being dropped, and a branch dependency causes a conflict error. That is exactly the 'what happens to dependent state' disclosure an agent needs before a destructive call.

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, then the effect on waiting recipients, then the blocking constraint. Every sentence carries distinct information with no 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 one-parameter destructive tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description supplies the key effect and precondition. The remaining gap is identifying what step_id looks like and where to get it, which neither schema nor description covers.

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 0% and the single parameter step_id has no description in the schema, so the description carries the burden. It implies step_id identifies a step of a campaign but adds nothing about identifier format, where to obtain it, or scoping to a campaign.

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: 'Remove an email from a campaign.' It is clearly distinguished from siblings such as delete_campaign (whole campaign), update_campaign_step, and move_campaign_step, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit precondition that blocks use: a step with a branch, or one a branch condition names, cannot be removed and the branch must be cleared first. It does not route to a sibling tool for branch removal, so guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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