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

The description discloses the main effect (removing suppression), the scope (all reasons and scopes), and a key limitation (spam complaints cannot be reactivated). It does not contradict the annotations (destructiveHint, idempotentHint) and adds useful constraint information beyond the annotations.

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 two sentences, concise and free of fluff. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds scope and limitations efficiently without redundancy.

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 action tool, the description covers the effect, scope, and a key exception (spam complaints). It does not mention error handling or response format, but the lack of an output schema and the simplicity of the operation make this acceptable. Overall, it provides sufficient context for the agent to use the tool correctly.

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 schema descriptions for email and api_key are present but minimal (repeating the parameter names). The tool description does not add additional meaning about these parameters, such as format or relationships. Since schema coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the resource (recipient from transactional suppression list), and explicitly defines the scope (clears across every reason and scope). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like add_suppressions and list_suppressions by focusing on reactivation.

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 mail again' implies when to use the tool (re-enabling a recipient). It also provides a critical limitation (spam complaints cannot be reactivated), which guides the user away from misuse. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions for using this over other tools.

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