Mailmodo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is 'remove' but doesn't clarify if this is reversible, permanent, requires specific permissions, or has side effects (e.g., affecting other lists or systems). This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and target, making it efficient and easy to parse, which is ideal for conciseness.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation with 2 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral traits, parameter details, or expected outcomes, leaving the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively beyond basic inference.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The tool description mentions 'a particular contact' and 'contact list', which loosely map to the 'email' and 'listName' parameters, but it doesn't explain what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or constraints. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 ('a particular contact from the contact list'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unsubscribeContact' or 'archiveContact', which might have overlapping functionality, 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 like 'unsubscribeContact' or 'archiveContact' from the sibling list. It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the name alone.

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