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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds valuable consequences beyond annotations: deletion is permanent, cannot be undone, and removes referral standing. It does not contradict annotations.

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 front-loaded with WRITE, DESTRUCTIVE and the key consequence, then ends with the endpoint. Every clause adds useful information with no wasted 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 destructive annotations and fully described schema, the description is nearly complete. It covers irreversibility and collateral referral-standing deletion; the only minor gap is that it does not explicitly reinforce the user-approval requirement for confirm.

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%, so the schema already explains uuid, subscriber_id, and the mandatory confirm=true flag. The description adds the endpoint path and deletion scope but no additional parameter semantics beyond the 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 and resource — permanently deleting a subscriber from a campaign — and clarifies that referral standing is deleted too. It clearly distinguishes this from non-destructive subscriber tools such as update_subscriber or get_subscriber.

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 destructive wording and irreversible consequence imply careful use, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention prerequisites such as obtaining user approval. The confirm parameter's requirement is only in the schema.

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