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

The description goes well beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explaining that the record is retained, that it is added to the suppression list, and that only the person can re-subscribe. These are meaningful behavioral details an agent needs before calling an irreversible mutation.

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 sentences, all informative and non-redundant. The action and primary side effect are front-loaded, and the irreversibility warning 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?

For a one-parameter destructive tool, the description covers the key behavior, suppression semantics, and irreversibility. It is slightly incomplete in that it omits explicit parameter guidance and does not differentiate itself from the sibling add_suppression tool, but schema and title fill most remaining gaps.

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%, and the description only refers to 'an address' without naming the email parameter, its required status, or expected format. It adds little semantic value beyond what the input schema already shows.

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 opens with the specific verb 'Unsubscribes an address' and identifies the resource plus the side effect of adding to the workspace's suppression list. It explicitly states the record is not deleted, which helps distinguish it from deletion tools and from add_subscriber.

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 gives clear context: this tool both unsubscribes and suppresses future imports, and it warns that the action cannot be reversed via API. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident.

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