contacts_remove_contact_from_every_campaign

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description 'Remove Contact From Every Campaign' adds no behavioral context beyond what the name and annotations convey. It does not mention irreversible side effects, the scope of campaigns affected, or any operational nuances. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description still fails to add value beyond the structural metadata.

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 short sentence with no filler words. It is appropriately concise for a tool with one parameter. However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, but it does not waste words, so it earns a 4.

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, the description is inadequate. It lacks context on the exact meaning of 'every campaign' (e.g., does it include archived campaigns? Is it reversible?), and provides no explanation of expected behavior or side effects. The one-parameter schema and absence of output schema mean the description must carry more explanatory weight, which it does not.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'contactId', which is described as 'Contact Id'. The description does not add anything about the parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Given high coverage, 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 clearly states the action (Remove) and the resource (Contact) with a specific scope (From Every Campaign). It distinguishes this from the sibling 'remove_contact_from_campaign' by explicitly using 'Every', so the purpose is unambiguous. However, it is essentially a restatement of the tool name with minimal additional detail.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling 'contacts_remove_contact_from_campaign'. There is no mention of use cases, preconditions, or alternatives. The description alludes to bulk removal only through the word 'Every', but does not explicitly state when this should be chosen over single-campaign removal.

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