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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description adds meaningful behavior beyond them: history is retained, removal is irreversible for that campaign, LinkedIn is untouched at call time, and execution is deferred through the campaign engine subject to daily/weekly limits and pacing. This deferral and irreversibility context is exactly what the annotations cannot convey.

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 core destructive action and its concern are front-loaded in the first sentence. The following sentences each carry a distinct behavioral fact (history, irreversibility, alternative tool, deferred timing), though the ZenMode pacing sentence is somewhat long-winded.

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 batch mutation with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: scope (one campaign, up to 100), irreversibility, side-effect timing, and the safer alternative. Combined with annotations that flag destructiveness and idempotency, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 campaign_id, contact_ids, and idempotency_key are all documented in the schema itself. The description restates the 'up to 100 contacts' bound (matching maxItems) but adds no format or syntax detail beyond structured fields. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 up to 100 contacts from one campaign') and immediately grounds it in a familiar analog ('exactly like Remove in the dashboard'). It differentiates itself from the sibling set by naming set_contact_outreach_state as the alternative for temporary stops.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use this to permanently end outreach, use set_contact_outreach_state with pause to stop temporarily. The 'cannot be added back to the same campaign' note effectively flags the inverse of add_leads_to_campaign, so when-to-use and when-not are both covered.

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