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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's added value is the irreversibility detail ('the entry and the record of when it was added are gone') and the scope/permission constraint. It does not contradict the annotation, but doesn't add significantly beyond what annotations plus the destruction note cover.

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?

Three tight sentences front-loaded with the action, the irreversibility warning, and the sibling routing. Nothing redundant.

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 single-param destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers effect, irreversibility, permission limits, and the bulk alternative – everything an agent needs to call it correctly and safely.

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 coverage is 100% and the id parameter is fully documented, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces 'by ID' and the effect, but adds no new parameter syntax. Slightly above baseline 3 for reinforcing the ID-based retrieval source.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Removes one suppression entry by ID') with the effect stated ('so campaigns can email that domain or address again'). Clearly distinguishes itself from the singular/mass sibling remove_blocklist_entries.

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?

Explicitly routes to the alternative: 'To unblock many values at once use remove_blocklist_entries.' It also names a precondition for when this tool cannot be used (sub-workspace key inheriting an account-wide entry).

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