reach_removeContactsFromATagV1

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the operation is asynchronous ('queued') and that a success response only means acceptance, which is critical for agent expectations. It also assures that the tag and contacts are not deleted. These are meaningful behavioral insights beyond the structured schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose. The targeting options and queued behavior are stated succinctly, with no redundant phrasing. Every sentence adds essential information.

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?

The tool has moderate complexity due to bulk operation and async processing, and no output schema or annotations are present. The description covers the main behavior but misses details such as whether contact_uuids and all_contacts are mutually exclusive, what the response body looks like, and potential validation rules. It is adequate but leaves gaps that an agent would need to infer.

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?

The schema lists only profileUuid and tagUuid with minimal descriptions ('Profile uuid parameter', 'Tag uuid parameter'), while the description introduces targeting parameters (contact_uuids, all_contacts) that are not in the schema. This adds value by explaining how to select contacts, but also creates a mismatch with the declared schema. Since schema coverage is 100% (though tautological), a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither fully compensates nor becomes misleading enough to lower further.

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 a tag from many contacts at once.' This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes from the sibling tool reach_removeAContactFromATagV1 that handles a single contact. It also clarifies that the tag and contacts are not deleted, further defining the scope.

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 clear targeting instructions by mentioning 'contact_uuids' and 'all_contacts' options. However, these parameters are not present in the input schema, creating confusion. It does not explicitly differentiate when to use this bulk tool versus the single-contact remove sibling, nor does it state any exclusions.

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