Remove Contact from Group

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states the mutation action but does not mention side effects, irreversibility, required permissions, or error conditions. For a mutating tool, this leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 consists of two short, front-loaded sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides essential parameter usage guidance. No extraneous information or repetition of schema details exists; every word earns its place.

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 simplicity of the tool (3 parameters, no output schema, no enums) and the minimal annotations, the description is largely sufficient. It covers the purpose and the key parameter interaction. However, for a mutation tool without any behavioral disclosures (e.g., what happens if the contact is not in the group), it could be slightly more complete by noting typical outcomes or prerequisites.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter coverage with individual descriptions. The description adds meaningful cross-parameter semantics by explicitly stating that group_id and group_name are mutually exclusive alternatives ("not both"), which is not present in the schema. This extra guidance improves parameter understanding beyond the structured definitions.

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 tool's action: "Remove a contact from a group in Less Annoying CRM." This is a specific verb+resource that immediately distinguishes it from sibling tools like add_contact_to_group. The additional guidance about group_id vs group_name further clarifies the operation.

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 implies usage context (for removing a contact from a group) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. The only guideline given is the parameter selection rule ("use either group_id or group_name, not both"), which is more about parameter usage than tool selection compared to siblings.

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