remove_campaign_email_accounts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Remove' implies a destructive mutation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this operation is reversible, what permissions are required, whether it affects campaign functionality, or what happens to the removed accounts. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple removal operation and gets straight to the point.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what happens after removal, whether there are side effects, what error conditions might occur, or what the tool returns. Given the complexity of campaign-email relationships and the lack of structured data, more context is needed.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (campaign_id and email_account_ids) adequately. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter context beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what constitutes valid IDs or how the removal affects the campaign.

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 target resources ('email accounts from a campaign'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_campaign' or 'unsubscribe_lead_from_campaign' which also involve removal operations, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'delete_campaign' (removes entire campaigns) and 'unsubscribe_lead_from_campaign' (removes leads), there's clear potential for confusion about which removal operation to use, but the description offers no clarification.

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