mailkite_remove_list_contact

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and idempotent. The description adds important context beyond annotations: it specifies the destructive scope (removes the list membership, not the contact) and discloses the authentication requirement. This helps the agent anticipate the operation's side effects accurately.

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, tight sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds a crucial scoping clarification. Every word earns its place with no wasted text.

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 two-parameter mutation with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description covers purpose, effect scope, and auth requirement. The only notable gap is the lack of explicit parameter-to-role mapping (which id is the list), but the tool name and param names make this reasonably inferable.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the schema descriptions are tautological ('Path parameter `id`') and provide no real semantics. The description does not explain which parameter refers to the list and which to the contact, leaving the agent to infer from parameter names and the tool name alone.

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 states a specific verb ('Remove'), a precise resource ('one contact from a list'), and immediately clarifies the action's scope ('the contact itself is kept'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling operations like delete_list or add_list_contacts, so an agent can tell what this tool does without ambiguity.

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?

It gives a clear usage context by requiring a management session token, which is a necessary prerequisite. The clarification that the contact itself is kept also implicitly guides agents away from using this tool when actual contact deletion is intended, though it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it.

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