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

Annotations already mark the tool as destructive and idempotent. The description adds valuable context by stating it 'Returns the count of leads actually removed,' which signals partial success behavior and reinforces idempotency. The guidance on leadRef structure also helps the agent understand what the operation expects.

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: the action, the essential parameter detail, and the return value plus a useful workflow pointer. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.

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 destructive tool with a nested array parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key invocation details: field semantics, default value, return value, and how to view the current list state. It could add a note about idempotency or behavior when some leads don't exist, but annotations and the count-based return cover most gaps.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the leadRefs shape: 'Each leadRef needs leadSource (default 'global') and leadId.' However, leadListId is left to its self-explanatory name, and the description slightly overstates leadSource as required when the schema marks it optional with a default. The maxItems and minItems constraints are not mentioned.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Remove specific leads from a lead list.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like campaignstack_remove_lead_list (removing a whole list) and campaignstack_add_leads_to_list (adding leads).

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 description clearly frames the operation as removing specific leads and tells the user to use campaignstack_get_lead_list with includeLeads=true to inspect current leads before removal. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this one, but the context is clear enough.

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