remove_contact

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether removal is idempotent, what happens if the email is not in the list (error vs silent success), whether the contact is deleted globally or only unlinked from this list, or what permissions are required. For a mutation with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, but its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined economy; nothing about outcome or failure mode is stated.

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?

A two-required-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema relies entirely on the description, which omits error behavior, idempotency, and scope of the removal (per-list vs account-wide). Not complete enough for correct invocation in edge cases.

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%, documenting both email and list_id (UUID), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no meaning beyond it — no format detail, no note about whether email must match an existing contact.

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 a contact from a contact list), which is unambiguous. It does not name a sibling or clarify how it relates to add_contacts/remove_suppression, so differentiation is implicit only.

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 on when to use this versus alternatives such as remove_suppression or update_contact_list, and no stated prerequisites (does the contact/list need to exist?). The agent must infer everything from the single sentence.

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