Remove Person Alias

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, and the description aligns with those. It adds useful operational context beyond the annotations: the $0.05 cost and API key requirement, while clearly identifying the mutation target.

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 compact and front-loaded: 'Remove one alias from a CRM person' states the action and object immediately. The cost and auth details are appended in a short parenthetical without unnecessary prose.

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 simple destructive operation, the annotations, output schema, and description together cover safety, cost, and auth. The main missing piece is usage/alternative guidance and edge-case behavior, but the low complexity and structured metadata reduce the burden on the description.

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?

With 50% schema description coverage, only request_id and idempotency_key are documented in the schema. The description partially compensates by mapping 'alias' and 'CRM person' to the two required parameters, but it does not clarify expected formats or that the alias must already exist on the person.

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 ('Remove'), a specific resource ('alias'), and a clear scope ('one ... from a CRM person'). It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like add_person_alias, update_person_alias, and get_person_aliases.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as inspecting aliases first with get_person_aliases or modifying them with update_person_alias. The intended usage must be inferred from the name and verb rather than stated.

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