contacts_remove_followers_contact

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

The description adds no behavioral details beyond the name. Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description provides no additional context such as whether the removal is permanent, if it affects related data, or if special permissions are required. With annotations carrying the safety profile, the description offers little extra value.

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 two words, which is concise but under-specified. It lacks any structure that would convey useful information, such as a complete sentence explaining the action's scope or effects. This is not a case of well-crafted conciseness but rather an absence of necessary content.

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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description should at least hint at what happens after removal, side effects, or return behavior. It provides none of this. The tool's simplicity doesn't excuse the lack of context; an agent would not know what to expect or how to verify success.

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 only 50% – contactId is described in the schema, but 'followers' (an array of strings) has no schema description. The description itself provides zero parameter semantics, so the tool adds no clarity about what the 'followers' array should contain (e.g., contact IDs, user IDs, other identifiers) or any constraints. This leaves a significant gap that the description fails to fill.

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 Followers' is a verb-noun phrase but lacks the target resource context. It doesn't specify that the followers are being removed from a contact, which is only clear from the tool name. It also doesn't distinguish from similar operations like removing followers from opportunities or from adding followers.

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 provided on when to use this tool or how it relates to alternatives. A sibling tool 'contacts_add_followers_contact' exists for adding followers, but the description gives no mention of this or any criteria for choosing one over the other. No context on prerequisites, limitations, or typical use cases.

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