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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds essential scope: it clears the whole address across every reason and scope, leaves Marketing Platform status untouched, and blocks spam-complaint reactivations. This tells the agent exactly what will be destroyed and what constraints apply, beyond what the annotations provide.

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?

Four sentences, each carrying non-redundant information: purpose and scope first, then the Marketing Platform boundary, the spam-complaint exclusion, and the dry_run preview. There is no filler.

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 destructive two-parameter toggle with no output schema, the description covers scope of effect, platform boundaries, a blocking exception, and how to preview safely. Nothing an agent needs in order to call it correctly is missing.

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 both parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description's mention of dry_run: true previews the same behavior already stated in the schema, so it adds little semantic value beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (Remove) and resource (recipient from the API Platform suppression list) with the outcome (can receive API Platform mail again). It explicitly distinguishes this from Marketing Platform contact status, separating it from sibling tools like add_suppressions and from marketing-side operations.

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?

Gives clear context and a hard exclusion: spam-complaint suppressions cannot be reactivated here, and dry_run previews the change. It does not name an alternative tool for handling spam-complaint cases or Marketing Platform suppressions, so the routing guidance is incomplete but still useful.

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