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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining the consequence: the address becomes eligible to receive email again. It does not mention irreversibility or confirmation, but the annotations carry that burden.

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 sentence with no wasted words, and the core action and effect are front-loaded.

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 one-parameter deletion tool with rich annotations and fully documented schema, the description is nearly complete enough. It covers the business effect, though it omits explicit usage alternatives or confirmation expectations that could help in a destructive operation.

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%, so the parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add details about the id parameter and even says "an address" while the schema allows either a suppression ID or email address. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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) and resource (suppression list), and adds the outcome that the address can receive email again. It does not explicitly name siblings like update-suppression or list-suppressions, but the operation is clearly distinguishable from those tools.

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 phrase "so it can receive email again" implies when to use the tool, but there is no explicit guidance on alternatives, exclusions, or prerequisites. An agent can infer its purpose, but the description does not route the agent among related tools.

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