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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description need not restate that this is a write. It adds important behavior not in annotations: a cap of 1000 members per call, the source of the IDs, and the fact that campaigns that already took the numbers keep them. It lacks details on invalid IDs or partial-failure behavior, so not a 5.

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 single sentence is front-loaded with the '[write]' marker and the core action, and every clause adds information. The parenthetical construction is slightly dense but not wasteful.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the purpose, the source of the required member IDs, the 1000-member limit, and a key side effect. It lacks validation or partial-failure details and list-identifier exclusivity, but annotations already supply the safety profile.

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 carry the burden; it meaningfully explains that sms_list_member_ids come from list_sms_list_members, are capped at 1000, and that the target list can be identified by sms_list_id or sms_list_uuid. It stops short of clarifying whether the ID and UUID are mutually exclusive or how to obtain them, but adds substantially more than the bare schema.

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 ('Removes') and resource ('members') scoped to a saved SMS list, and explicitly names the source of the IDs as list_sms_list_members. That specificity clearly distinguishes it from add_sms_list_members and the analogous remove_*_list_members siblings.

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 implies when to use it by naming the saved list and the member IDs from list_sms_list_members, but it does not explicitly compare it to add_sms_list_members or state prerequisites. The '[write]' tag and list-scoped wording provide context, but no explicit when-not or alternative guidance is given.

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