Remove Lead from Campaign

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable nuance by specifying that the lead itself remains in the workspace—so destruction is limited to the campaign membership. This clarifies the scope of the destructive action, though it does not mention reversibility or effects on campaign analytics.

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, focused sentence with a useful parenthetical qualifier. Every word adds meaning, and the core action is front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler 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?

This is a simple two-parameter operation with complete schema documentation, a destructive hint, and an output schema. The description covers the key outcome and the main boundary (lead stays in workspace). It is sufficient for an agent to call the tool correctly, though a note on irreversibility or when to use delete_lead would make it fully complete.

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 campaign_id and linkedin_url already documented in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond referring to 'lead' and 'campaign,' so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Remove a lead from a campaign.' The parenthetical '(lead stays in workspace)' clearly delineates this from delete_lead and other destructive operations, making the tool's purpose 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?

The phrase 'lead stays in workspace' implies this tool should be used when the lead should be preserved but removed from a specific campaign. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like delete_lead, add_existing_lead_to_campaign, or state conditions for when to choose those instead. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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