Remove Contacts from List

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: only list membership is destroyed while the contact records survive, and user confirmation is required beforehand. It omits any note on idempotency (annotation says false) or partial-failure behavior when some contact_ids are not in the list.

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?

Three short sentences with the core action and its scoping caveat front-loaded, followed by the operational safeguard. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema and annotations that already declare the destructive profile, the description covers the essential scope and confirmation requirement. It could go further by noting behavior when an id is absent or repeated, but it is sufficient to invoke the tool 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%, with both the list uuid and the contact_ids array fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a light hint that the list should be identified by name during confirmation, which does not extend parameter meaning 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Remove contacts from a list') and immediately scopes the effect by clarifying that 'the contacts themselves are kept', which separates it from a delete-contact operation. It does not name the inverse sibling (add-contacts-to-list), so an agent must infer the pairing, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Provides one concrete procedural guideline ('Confirm with the user first, naming the list'), which is genuinely useful for a destructive operation. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as remove-tag-from-contacts or a full contact delete, so usage context is only partially implied.

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