contacts_remove_contact_from_campaign

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the description does not need to restate those. Beyond that, the description adds no behavioral context—it does not mention side effects, what happens if the contact is not in the campaign, or any authorization requirements. Given the annotations, the description contributes nothing extra to behavioral transparency.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified. It merely repeats the tool name's essence without providing any new information, so the sentence does not 'earn its place' by adding value. While brevity is good, this is too terse to be helpful.

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 operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not mention the return value, any confirmation, or how it differs from similar tools like removing from every campaign. An agent cannot fully assess consequences or select this over siblings without additional information, and the description provides no such context.

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%, meaning both parameters are documented as 'Contact Id' and 'Campaigns Id'. The tool description itself adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as format, required format, or relationships. Since the schema already handles the semantics, the description is not required to compensate, and the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Remove Contact From Campaign' clearly states the action and resource, so an agent knows it removes a contact from a campaign. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name without any additional context or nuances, and it does not differentiate this tool from similar siblings like 'contacts_remove_contact_from_every_campaign' or 'contacts_add_contact_to_campaign' beyond the name itself.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context on prerequisites, scope, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. With siblings that remove a contact from every campaign or add contacts to campaigns, the lack of any usage direction leaves an agent guessing about which operation fits a given task.

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