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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful post-condition (the person's posts stop appearing in the campaign's widgets) but does not say whether the removal is reversible, whether their collected posts are deleted or merely hidden, or what permissions are required.

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?

A single sentence that leads with the action and follows with the concrete consequence, with no redundant or filler wording.

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 two-parameter destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers what happens visually but leaves the important semantic gap of whether the participant's data is deleted or only suppressed, and whether the operation can be undone. Adequate, but not fully complete for a destructive mutation.

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 the schema already explains that campaign_id comes from list_campaigns and participant_id from get_campaign. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Removes a person from a hashtag campaign") and adds the observable effect on campaign widgets. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like remove_review_source or remove_account by naming the affected resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling by name.

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 action and its stated outcome, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. campaign must exist or be in a given state), and no mention of the alternative tools for undoing or re-adding a participant.

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